I will draw a comparison between classical reasoning and quantum reasoning models. Reflecting on classical philosophy and metaphilosophy.
Philosophy:
- A implies B
B implies C
Therefore, A is C
Metaphilosophy:
- If this causes that, and that causes another, then it becomes a relative cause for the other through the consequence of this.
Philosophy:
- If A then B
A then B
Metaphilosophy:
- If one thing causes another, and they are interrelated, then they become relative causes for each other through a complex interconnection.
Metaphilosophy:
- Something cannot enter impossibility.
Philosophy:
- If something is possible, then it cannot fall into the category of impossible.
The difference❓
The difference lies in the meaning of "enter." In philosophy, it asserts the conceptual difference between what is possible and what is impossible. In metaphilosophy, the meaning of "enter" is truly understood not only as a logical and rational concept but genuinely empirical and objective.
PHILOSOPHICAL NUANCES
Classical philosophy emphasizes absolute contradictions. Metaphilosophy can see that behind contradictions, there is another possibility.
Classical philosophy views truth as rational, while metaphilosophy sees rationality as something objective.
Example: Rationally, "a straight line is the shortest distance between two points," as in mathematics. However, science (Einstein) reveals that what is rational is not necessarily objective, not empirical, not realistic.
Philosophy accepts truth rationally, logically, deductively. While metaphilosophy sees truth as something testable, must be empirically tested, objective, realistic, through a scale of absoluteness (logical consequences) - SOMETHING NEW FACED ONLY BY SCIENCE, making science feel unfamiliar - unaccustomed. WHY?
BECAUSE WHEN PHILOSOPHY IS RATIONAL, SCIENCE STRIVES FOR EMPIRICAL & OBJECTIVE, YET METAPHILOSOPHY REDEFINES OBJECTIVITY AS TRUTH THROUGH LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES.
Reflecting Deeper
- RATIONALITY. The reality behind cause and effect (quantum level) should not be calculated rationally in a mathematical sense.
- DEDUCTIVE. Nor should it be deduced philosophically.
- INDUCTION. And not merely bnased on inductive statistical values.
- CONTEMPLATION. Yet, all of it + objectively contemplated, uncovering its truth not just as a conclusion dependent on its premises but as an absolute truth where the premises depend on or are enveloped by logical consequences (which, from a philosophical standpoint, can be seen as the conclusion encompassing the premises – seeming impossible, but that's because it's not a conclusion but an understanding from another, simpler perspective).
HERE, IT DOESN'T MEAN METAPHILOSOPHY & Philosophy are separate from science & mathematics, but rather a synergistic union among them.
✅ We make comparisons to see the differences without hastily judging it as SOMETHING STRANGE.
LANGUAGE OF REASONING
We must familiarize ourselves with the language of each reasoning dimension.
Mathematics. Truth is formulated through functions f(x). That's one example.
Or... truth is measured through change (with calculus - limits).
Physics. Space-time curves, forming gravitational effects.
Or... something is constant... like this.
Philosophy❓Your goodness is seen in your honesty...
〰〰〰
To see the difference in language, I create a poem....
☪ Religion. Love blooms in the shade of His approval.
❤️ Mathematics. Your love and my love form through equations of curves shaping the curve of love.
💖 Physics. Let the space between us curve, bringing love closer in the gravity of space-time.
💘 Philosophy. Your love and my love are brought together through a will beyond our control.
☯ METAPHILOSOPHY. Love is dependence on the beloved that brings comfort.
THE ESSENCE HERE IS THAT WHEN THE EXPRESSION OF QUANTUM-LEVEL TRUTH FEELS STRANGE - ALIEN, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ABSURD
EMPTINESS AS A CURVED SPACE
https://www.quantamagazine.org/where-do-space-time-and-gravity-come-from-20220504/
LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE
Actually, the language of science is also peculiar to the common person. Starting from the concept of "curved space," "relativity," and so on.
What about the language of absoluteness❓How strange is it compared to what you usually know from the philosophy community❓
🔰 This discussion is not just a cursory overview. Not just a fleeting piece of information, but we must truly use it not as a poetic language but as it is.
That's why for those unaccustomed, they might think absolute truth is beyond reason, too high❓NO❗️NOT AT ALL❗️BUT BECAUSE OF ITS SIMPLICITY.
It's like someone used to carrying a burden when traveling, and when the burden disappears, suddenly wonders if something is missing. Yet nothing is missing; it's just a new, lighter pattern.
So simple that it seems difficult to grasp with reason. Like air that seems hard to swallow, even though we breathe it every day.
♦️How about the language of absoluteness❓The language of simplicity that feels strange❓
LANGUAGE OF ABSOLUTENESS
🔰 The language of absoluteness is not trying to be poetic.
✅ Not an expression that seems heavy but a simple language from reality.
🔰 Differentiate between light language, heavy language & simple language.
- LIGHT. Language that is light because it's within reach (commonly known), making it easy to understand.
- HEAVY. Language that is heavy because there's no common ground for mutual understanding, making it beyond reach.
- SIMPLE. Language that is simple because it's instinctive, natural, intuitive, making it understandable not because it's light, or heavy because no one fails to understand, but because its angles hide nothing and are within reach.
What is simple is not light within reach, and not (because someone thinks) heavy beyond reach, but simple in mastery.
Because what is within reach is not necessarily within mastery, but what is within mastery is certainly within reach.
❇️ LANGUAGE OF ABSOLUTENESS IS NOT LIGHT / HEAVY LANGUAGE, BUT SIMPLE LANGUAGE
🔰 Here is an example of a language of absoluteness that is simple, not light or heavy, but simply simple.
💈
Existence everywhere, so if we step out of existence, it's the same as returning to existence itself.
There is no absolute non-existence beside anywhere in existence, so wherever we point, it never points to absolute non-existence.
Impossible but discussable because impossibility has no reality except as a deadlock of thought.
🔰 IN SHORT, TO FEEL ONCE THE NUANCE OF STRANGENESS (ALTHOUGH UNACCUSTOMED IN DAY-TO-DAY CONVERSATION)
- We cannot press absolute non-existence.
- Cannot enter absolute non-existence.
- Limited because it's limited.
- Unlimited because it’s not being limited unless limiting.
- The limit of existence is existence itself.
- What exists but not the real one.
- What’s not real but not nothing.
- What’s real because it surpasses existence.
- Surpassing existence means becoming the dependent place of existence.
- What’s real means becoming the cause of something.
- Eternal is immortalizing.
- Being immortalized means the consequence of absolute cause.
- Being immortalized means not eternal.
ALL THE ABOVE IS A FORMULATION IN METAPHILOSOPHY, just like formulations in mathematics & physics, with expressions in the language of absoluteness - simplicity.
〰〰〰
IF YOU ASK, WHY IS THE SIMPLE, INTUITIVE, NATURAL LANGUAGE OF ABSOLUTENESS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND❓
- 👉 That means our intuition, our nature, is closed because our inner self doesn’t want to concede, making truth not approach us and seemingly difficult to comprehend. Because we can’t force truth to approach us (so we understand), but we accept defeat, allowing our nature to open, and the light of truth enters, enlightening and giving understanding to us.
