Introduction E9F5FC

Questions FFFFC0

• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Submitted for the 1st Epistemology of Metaphysics Workshop, EMW 1, May 8, 2015, but not accepted.

Imagining Everything

I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully. We may say, I wish to take up God's vantage point, as if to sit on his lap, and be able to crawl forth in any direction and return to where I started.

If I am ever to achieve such knowledge, then I expect that it must be where everybody could find it, yet nobody is looking, namely, the wisdom of human life. If God is kind, then I may find it by studying the limits of my imagination. I take metaphysics to be the conclusions we can draw from such study. I present some methods and results.

Is it possible to know anything absolutely? I start with the concept of everything. I note four properties:

• A) Everything has no external context (if it is put in a box, then it includes the box)
• B) Everything is the simplest algorithm, which accepts all things, that is, has no filter (and so your everything and my everything are the same)
• C) Everything has no internal structure (it may be orderly or chaotic, and thus all statements are true about it, as there is no structure to latch onto)
• D) Everything is a required concept (we could not have learned it and so we must have always had it)

The people who I interact with all have this concept. Even a skeptic takes their stand with regard to everything. Perhaps there are those who do not have this concept, but it is up to the skeptic to seek them out. It is absolute pragmatically.

We may divide everything into perspectives. This happens naturally in certain arguments, for example, where we take sides between "free will" and "fate". I note divisions of everything which recur throughout the history of thought:

• a twosome for issues of being: one perspective where "opposites coexist" (as when we ask, Does this chair exist or not?) and another perspective where "all things are the same" (as when we answer, If it exists, then it exists, and if not, then not.)
• a threesome for participation: taking a stand, following through, and reflecting (as with the scientific method)
• a foursome for knowledge: whether (a cup is in a cupboard if nobody looks for it there), what (the cup looks and feels like), how (the cup is created and used), why (the cup is essential to absolutely everything else).

We conceive these divisions through representations. Idealists ask Why? How? What? and dismiss Whether? Materialists answer Whether! What! How! and dismiss Why!

If we negate Whether, What, How, Why, we get true, direct, constant, significant, which are the representations of the nullsome - God. The four properties of everything are the representations of the onesome. The representations of the twosome are: same-different, theory-practice, outside-inside, free will-fate. The representations of the threesome are a variant of Kant's twelve categories: necessary-actual-possible, object-process-subject, one-all-many, being-doing-thinking.

I will present a variety of methods for working together to establish such results.