Metaphysics Prototype

Introduction

Metaphysics comes from the word metaphysica in Latin which comes from Greek that is ta meta ta phusika. Roughly translated to, “That which comes after Physics,” of course this refers to the work of Aristotle that is titled “Physics”. In the contemporary age, the prefix meta refers to something which is beyond, above, or surpasses something else. As such metaphysics is the discourse of things above physics, the science of universal motion.

Metaphysics can be said as the foundation of all philosophy, all things within the philosophy of philosophers must be based on some sort of metaphysical belief. May it be ethics, epistemology, or aesthetics even hinge upon the truth of several laws or statements, which can only be gained in metaphysics. Even the empirical sciences, say physics itself, depends on several basic metaphysical principles. For that reason we can claim that metaphysics is the source of all knowledge.

In metaphysics we determine basic laws, or laws of reality that are certain and applies for all entities of reality. It can be said that these laws are also foundations for all other laws, including physical laws such as gravity must obey and be based on the foundational laws of metaphysics. As such, our task is to find the most basic law, or laws, for the purpose of clarifying all subsequent laws.

It is true that many previous philosophers have expressed their own opinions of metaphysics, from Aristotle to Descartes to Sartre. Yet there has never been a single metaphysical system that unites all mankind, and possibly, resolve all problems which man endures. Of course this writing will be a mere addendum to many previous writings, and will only be one from many future works.

Regardless, this work exists to organize the chaotic metaphysical concepts, and attempt to discover what can be said as true. This would be indeed controversial, as what is thought to be true tends to be considered subjective, not because it is actually subjective but because the methods of finding it is in a gray area. Not to mention the social implications which can happen, such that any truth will inevitably be debated. For that matter we must strive for a truth, which can no longer be debated.

Empiricism

Before we truly begin this metaphysical system, it’s better to respond to the most common metaphysical view be it in the common folk or the academia. The word empiricism may sound complicated, but it is merely the academic term for the common view that knowledge and reality is as what we sense. The origins of the word comes from Greek that is empeiria or ἐμπειρία, which means experience. Etymologically, empiricism is the view that the purest reality is the one in concordance with experience.

The empirical view becomes the foundation for the body of knowledge in general, including social sciences. In fact, the founder of sociology that is Auguste Comte proposes logical positivism, which states that all knowledge only comes from the five sense. This is dangerous for philosophy and metaphysics as positivism rejects all things beyond our senses. For philosophy refers to things that are independent of sensory experience and eternal, meaning it is independent of it.

There are several approaches to why empiricism can not be used as the right metaphysical view. First, empiricism disregards ideas which are nonetheless eternal and detached from senses. An empiricist or positivist would claim that ideas can be sensed through writing, or as other forms that can be sensed. Or they may claim that ideas exist as an arrangement of brain activity, thus ideas still exist empirically.

This understanding is flawed, as for written word we know that there are multiple languages and scripts that are used for communication. So that when we express one idea, it can be in multiple shapes and forms, how can each of them be declared same? We must conclude then that the idea and its media is not the same. Then, regarding brain activity, is the brain activity for one idea the same for each person? If yes, then be it, but if it is different certainly we can not equate the idea with brain activity which is again, just a media.

The next problem is of consciousness, or the method of consciousness so to speak. According to the empiricists, consciousness is merely a “mechanic” which emerges from the complexity of the brain. As such, if the brain is destroyed, then consciousness is destroyed with it. To understand why such thing makes no sense, we must sleep. When asleep, we experience nothing, except when we dream, and 7 hours fly away like nothing. It means that the lack of consciousness is inconceivable, and when we die an infinite amount of time will feel like just a dot.

As a consequence, like it or not consciousness must be repeated after death, as a thousand years of darkness will be gone in just a second. Moreover about the complexity of the brain, yes the human brain enables humans to have a powerful intellect. However it gives no explanation or proof that consciousness comes from the brain alone. There is no reason for us to “feel” simply because our brain is complex, that is impossible and stupid. Thus consciousness can not be stated as a mere empirical object.

Lastly is of the determination of existence itself, empiricists claim that what exists is only what can be sensed. So, if God can not be sensed, God does not exist. The same argument can be used to proof that the world only exist when we observe it. Empiricism also declares humans as the judge of the world, but who are we humans to declare the existence of anything? If humans vanish, does the world die with them? And before there are humans, is the world non-existent? Certainly not, and the world persists with or without us.

With the above criticisms, it is sufficiently clear why empiricism can not be used as a good metaphysical view. As empiricism disregards idealistic existence, disregards consciousness, and acts as if humans are the absolute determinants of existence. Yes many people would believe that the world persists with or without humans, but paradoxically they are the same people to say that only matter exists as that is what can be seen. For that reason we must reject the empirical perspective and begin a new system.

Existence

The most basic element of reality that can debated and questioned is existence. Existence is indeed the most basic element of an object, for if it does not exist it would be impossible for us to speak of such object. Say a red Alfa Romeo GTV which can be described in terms of its redness, its curvature, its price, and so many others. Perhaps we can speak of its sentimental values, or why is it better than other cars and so on. However, what we commonly forgot is its existence, if the GTV doesn’t exist, it’s impossible for us to speak of it. As such, existence precedes the essence.

In the determination of existence, several approaches can be taken, one of them being the axiomatic approach. Which means we declare the existence of reality as a first principle, without proof. Of course it is not without proof, rather we see it worthy as a first proof. The basis of axioms are not mere imaginations, but carefully taken from intuitive logic and common sense. Though for the clarification of existence, we will continue with other approaches.

The second approach, and the one that will be our primary proof of the existence of reality is the skeptical approach. That is we prove reality by doubting reality. The justification is that we can not prove the existence of reality with certainty. The senses can not be trusted, and there is no foundation for the existence of reality, as such it is only appropriate that we reject the existence of reality. This rejection is not exclusive or rejects certain things only, it rejects all things.

Of course this denial becomes contradictory as if we deny the denial, then is it not that we are also denying the denial? Such that the denial becomes meaningless and what we have must be the opposite. Since nothing exists, we can state, “Reality doesn’t exist.” Yet because of that statement’s existence, reality exists. In that sense we can deny everything but we can not deny the denial, thus reality exists.

Another approach to truly convince us that reality exists is through an infinite regression. When we deny all things, and find the existence of the denial, we can still deny that, deny the next denial, deny it again, and so on without end. In this case it becomes an infinite regression and we must accept regardless that existence does exist. For in the previous condition we are merely adding axioms upon axioms to reject other axioms.

Or we can create an axiom that explicitly denies reality, but logically we know that this axiom is self destructive. For it denies its own existence, and thus we must accept the existence of reality as that is what we need. Furthermore, if the axiom is true, then there should be no axioms in the first place and we couldn’t know whether there is an axiom or no.

As such, as long as something can be said, reality must exist in the form of that saying. If there truly is no existence, then this work can not be read, or written in the first place, because there is no author and nothing to be written. Because of that, we return to the axiom of existence, that existence is true and must be true, or it will be against the reality that experience and know. And with that we can formulate our first metaphysical conclusion, the existence of reality is true.

The next question is about the determination of existence as well as the beginning and the end of existence. Is existence determined by an entity or judge? Based on the above observation, it can be understood that existence is not determined, be it by sensory observation, or mere statements and axioms. Existence is absolute and can not be debated or determined. Thus, the next question has been answered indirectly, that reality has no beginning or end.

The proof that existence is absolute and does not begin or end is as follows. If existence as has a beginning or end, then there must be a cause or thing that determines the beginning and end of existence. The cause does not have to be a separate entity from existence itself, existence can be itself the determinant of its own existence. However, before there is any existence, how can it begin itself? As there is nothing that is there to precede anything.

The same can be said for its end, when existence destroys itself, does it not mean existence is gone and dies for eternity?If we accept that existence can be destroyed, then there must be a higher entity above existence to determine existence or oblivion. And to determine that entity we require another entity and we will end up with another infinite regression. Thus we must accept that existence is absolute, has no beginning nor an end, and is certain. From that we can deduce the next conclusion, that existence must be true, is undetermined by anything, and does not begin nor end or in other words, is eternal.

With the above discussion we can formulate some law of existence or highest law of reality. That the existence of reality is certain and can not be debated. Reality is not hinged upon sensory experience, and even if reject it, it will continue to exist. Reality or existence is eternal and can not begin or end. Thus this law becomes the first law in our metaphysical arrangement, and shall become the highest law in the arrangement of subsequent metaphysical laws.

Consciousness

The next law that we will determine in the problem of metaphysics is the problem of consciousness. Before we begin, consciousness here does not refer to sensory awareness as postulated by empiricists. Rather it is a pure consciousness much higher and precedes mere sensory awareness. As in the case of existence, consciousness has also several approaches for the proof of itself as a law of reality.

The first approach that is the axiomatic approach states that consciousness exists simply because we have consciousness. That is through ordinary experience we are forced to accept that consciousness is indeed a basic thing. We can postulate that consciousness does not exist, but even if we take a definition of consciousness that is detached from “sensation”, the postulate will self destruct as the existence of ideas and any statements at all requires the existence of consciousness.

The axiom of consciousness is sufficient to establish it, but insufficient to explain it, thus we require a second approach that is the observation towards the statement of denial. In truth we can change the denial into an affirmative statement which states, “Reality exists,” but since only that one reality exists, then it can be written, “I exist.”

This self acknowledgement is the essence of consciousness, and in relation to reality it becomes proof that consciousness is the second essence of reality. From the above explanations, consciousness is more than merely knowing the existence our environment, rather also the existence of ourselves and also understanding that what is named environment is part of ourselves as reality. However, before we rejoice, we must understand a much more important thing, that is the origins of this statement.

We must realize that the ones that created this statement, and the one that accepts the existence of reality is not a mere idea, rather a consciousness which truly exists that is us, humans. If put in personal terms, it is I as the author which postulates such thing. Thus what is truly meant by, “I exist,” is the acceptance of our self as a being and entity of reality which truly has a substantial existence. For that reason, what is being acknowledged is not a mere empty idea, but “Us,” a consciousness which is living.

If we deny consciousness, be it now or as an essence of reality, so be it. However we must understand several things, that all of our lives is only possible through consciousness. In fact, the reasoning on the existence of reality is known only through our consciousness, specifically our logical consciousness. And if we deny consciousness, then all this metaphysical arrangement will be destroyed, as there should be no metaphysics at all. For that matter, consciousness must necessarily be declared to exist.

The next question is on the dependence of consciousness on the human brain or computational complexity. There is a dangerous scientific hypothesis among empiricists of the modern age, that consciousness is inferior to other natural laws. That consciousness is merely the result of the brain’s complexity, especially the human brain, which is the most complicated and interacts with each other. In consequence, if the brain is destroyed, then consciousness is lost with it, and this is what’s dangerous.

If we accept that consciousness is limited and will be destroyed when the brain dies, it means death is eternal oblivion. Of course that is not the main problem, no one will be there to experience it. What becomes a problem is the implications of world existence. Before humans exist, who guarantees the existence of the world and what becomes the guarantee that existence is true as it is?

Evolution is also not sudden rather slowly, so when and where does the point of consciousness begins? Does it begin “slowly” or “sudden”? Of course science can not answer that question, as there can only be two (2) states of awareness, that is 0 and 1. There can not be 0,5 or ¾ aware or any other fractions, it is impossible. So, can empiricism deliver a fixed second, minute, hour, and date for the emergence of consciousness?

Regarding the world’s existence after the extinction of all humans, or all “intelligent” life, will the world continue to exist after it? Most experts and scientists or even laymen will claim that the world continues to exist, with or without humans. Of course for believers which believe in a continously conscious God, this is not a problem. However, for atheists which deny an eternal consciousness, this is a problem.

Every postulate which states that the world exists with or without consciousness, and what is named consciousness has no part in the determination of world existence is based not upon a factual certainty rather a probability or hypothesis which is a gamble. It is true that the lack of observation is not an absolute guarantee of non existence, but observation is an absolute guarantee of existence, even if not in material form. As such, the probability of an object’s existence outside of observation can never reach 1, or 100%.

Other than that, the fact that in the observation of the existence of reality, that is ourselves, we use no senses at all, is a fact which doubts the hard empiricism on consciousness. It is true that in the process of writing senses are required, but the production of ideas does not require senses at all. Thus, a consciousness without senses is highly probable, as in essence consciousness is not attached to senses.

As a second to last argument, we must understand that what is named “intelligence” is different from “consciousness”. It is very probable for a computer to deduce that they exist. All we need is put in a “sensor” of computer activity and then the computer can say that they exist. And then a visual sensor to detect its form and many other sensors so the the computer is convinced that they exist. However, does it have a “feeling” towards such thing?

This problem, known as the zombie argument is more commonly applied to other humans. If a computer can be created with such “self aware” capabilities, and we can not be sure of ourselves if they can feel or not, how can we be sure that other humans feel? The point is, the argument that consciousness comes from the brain can resolve the problem of intelligence, that intelligence comes from algorithmic complexity, but will never resolve the problem of “feeling”.

The last argument as a final proof that consciousness is eternal and transcendent is as follows. A consciousness is continuous and uncut, in fact time only exists when we are conscious. In a period of time where we lose consciousness, or experience a “0” state of awareness, that is no consciousness, time itself will be meaningless. That is why when we sleep time passes very quickly, especially in the absence of dreams.

And the main reason why we humans are still aware of when we sleep is because when we sleep we lose awareness slowly. We first lose our sight, then at one point everything disappears, then we wake up. If we lose all awareness at once, and awake at once, what is there is our environment changes in the smallest quanta of time that can be realized by humans. Even if that empty period lasted for hours, we would not feel it.

As a result, when we die and consciousness is truly destroyed, then the eternity of oblivion would pass within an unimaginable smallest unit of time. Then we wake up, either as a spirit or as a small child which has lost all of their memories, that is reincarnation. What happens after we die, we do not know, I as the author can not answer either, but an infinite amount of time will past and then we wake up. That is a certainty, no questions about it.

Thus, consciousness is eternal, though can be cut by states of “0”, but that state has no temporal dimension. It is only a small dot within the line of consciousness. Of course, if we are alone, and by that absolutely alone without any other objects, the dot is the same as non-existent.  Or when that dot “happens”, it’s just the same as if nothing exists, and only exists again once the dot ends. Whatever happens during that dot, including an amount of time, has no meaning, unless there is another entity which observes while we sleep.

An additional note as well as the beginning of the conclusion, according to the examinations that we have, consciousness must be eternal, in the sense that it will always exist and never end, and is detached from any senses or any brains, and it is the guarantee of the existence of reality. We can only know through consciousness, there is no other way. Not by divine will, but to know is to be conscious. And of course, what separates consciousness from intellect is indeed “feeling”, or qualia.

And so we can formulate a complete and systematic law of consciousness. First, consciousness must exist either axiomatically or the observation of the statement of existence. Second, consciousness can not end and will continue to exist independent of senses. Third, consciousness is the guarantee of existence and the source of axioms, if it can be realized (not sensed), then it exists. However, if it can not be realized, then there is merely no certainty of its existence.

Identity

We know of 2 highest and most basic properties and laws of reality, that is existence and consciousness or awareness. Existence means reality must exist and is eternal, and awareness is how we, the entity of reality, knows and understand the existing reality. Consciousness is also indirectly eternal, as any state of unawareness is merely a single point which has no size, an infinitesimal.

However the most important question is whether oblivion exists in its own right? Some may claim that oblivion is just as it is, the non-existence of existence, but this implies that true oblivion, “doesn’t exist.” To resolve this problem we can take several approaches and as usual we shall begin with an axiom.

We can certainly arrange an axiom of oblivion which states, “The condition of oblivion has equal existence with the condition of existence.” But before we create all of our metaphysical theories with just axioms, it is good if we understand the true nature of axioms. Axioms are not arguments that can not be proven, they are arguments that can not be explained without using observation and awareness. In other words, axioms and axiomatic approaches (exclusive for this work) is an arrangement or conclusion based on experience which is seen as appropriate by I, the author.

Thus, axioms can be explained, but do not expect an explanation free from idealistic observations. To explain the axiom of oblivion, we must understand that what is named oblivion is inherently different from existence. In an empirical perspective, white and black is by nature different, and so we can differentiate between the two. Indeed, black is merely the absence of light, yet could we not state white as the absence of black or darkness?

And so there are 2 axiomatic foundations for the statement of oblivion, first oblivion can be differentiated from existence concretely. This implies that oblivion has a sufficiently substantial “existence” to be separate from existence. If it does not exist, certainly we can not separate it from what exists. The next foundation is observation, we know that the condition of knowing and ignorance is equal in existence. We also know that the condition of the absence of a thing manifests independently as well, be it cold or even evil.

Even more so than an axiomatic approach, we also know that the laws of existence and consciousness as written by I, the author, does not forbid or regulate problems of oblivion and unconsciousness. The only law written for the 2 properties is as follows, that there must be some sort of existence, and there must be some sort of awareness for each time. In fact, the second law is arbitrary, consciousness may exist eternally or there may be a period of emptiness. Simply put, oblivion can coexist with existence, but how?

Oblivion and existence can not mix as that is impossible, but they coexist together. It is true that pure oblivion is impossible, but a pure existence which experiences the oblivion or absence of all other things is highly probable. If we imagine, it is akin to not moving in a darkness, having no sound, no smell, no taste or touch, but there is a feeling. This feeling is pure awareness, unattached from senses.

In fact, in an almost paradoxical manner the law of existence guarantees the existence of some condition of “oblivion”. This law states that existence is eternal, certain, and can not be doubted. In other words, the existence of any object is eternal and has only one value, that is “1”, and anything that we say about that existence, will not change it. Thus it can be said that oblivion is just like that, as a condition it is declared existent by the laws of reality, but not as a law.

This also separates between what becomes law and what is a mere condition, a condition is merely an explication of what is happening in reality at that exact moment, but law is a condition that applies constantly without exceptions. As such, anything that we say can be considered “true”, with the condition that it does not violate the law of existence and awareness. As such, the condition of oblivion is “allowed” with the condition that the condition of existence continues to exist. In fact, as said, such existence is guaranteed by the law of existence.

Why is such proof towards the existence of “oblivion” highly significant? After all it is incredibly intuitive and can be recognized in daily life. The reason, is we wish to clarify why some things must be accepted as true as with that we obtain several points of law about such thing. And for the purposes of this writing, proving the existence of “oblivion” would highly aid in the explanation of identity, or the difference of properties.

Before we continue with subsequent identities, we can conclude several things. That the condition of oblivion exists independently and separate from the condition of existence. This is proven by several things, that we can be aware of that oblivion as something separate from existence, and what exists and what is allowed to exist is not limited by the law of existence, only that the condition of existence must continue to exist, and that the condition of oblivion is guaranteed existence by the law of existence.

The next question addresses the existence of identities, in this work meaning the different characteristics of objects, and their continued existence. For the problems of identitarian existence, 2 simplest approaches is through axiom and the law of existence. As humans, we are consciously capable of seeing and sensing different things, thus different identities are guaranteed to exist. The law of existence supports this argument, that identity is guaranteed in existence and is undetermined by other factors.

What becomes the main problem is not existence of identity, but the continuation and the eternal nature of these identities. Or it can be said, “What existence is conserved?” This question is important, as we know that consciousness is not eternal, neither is its oblivion, and only “existence” is eternal. The conservation of existence is a certainty, but until where does this law apply and what boundaries can be made?

The law of existence does not clarify what is guaranteed conserved or eternal existence, be it some awareness or some undefined reality. As such we can say that the existence of identity is not conserved and can be wrong, meaning the existence of identity does not have to be eternal. For that reason it is better for us to start from that point and examine whether we can believe in the impermanence of identity or instead fall into contradiction.

Assume an identity A, which exists within reality. Then identity A is destroyed and it disappears completely. If so, this means there is a central entity controlling other entities. At a glance, this interpretation does not defy the law of existence, we can easily accept a “God” entity, which controls all this, but then we must accept that there are parts of reality that can not determine its own existence and its existence is not eternal. This clearly violates the law of conserved existence, and thus the opposite of this condition must be true, that is the conserved existence of identity.

It must be remembered that identity here is the same with condition or entity, as those three terms refer to the same concept, that is a specific part of reality. Of course assuming that thing as part of reality means it must also bow to the law of existence. A resolution to this is to accept two facts, that all things are nevertheless part of 1 reality, not separated, and to see reality as a set. If something enters a set, which is the set of all things, then whatever it is must also follow the laws of that set.

The reasoning for our seemingly unregulated change of interpretation is based upon the points of the laws of awareness. If we can be aware of something, that something exists, and because existence is not separate from reality, whatever exists is part of reality. For that reason, whatever we realize obeys the laws of existence which means it has an eternal existence, not only that, awareness is only the guarantee of existence and not oblivion. The point is, conserved existence of identity must be accepted.

However it must be remembered that for any identity a fitting opposite exists, that is its own oblivion. There must be a condition where the existence of an identity is 1 and another where it is 0. Because of a law of existence which states that there must be existence, this means in the purest state, everything that has existed, is existing, and will exist have a coexistence in one point and all points that are the same. This includes oblivion itself, and this condition can be known as an existential superposition.

Is there a limit to this existential superposition? No, everything that can be differentiated from another thing is an entity with a unique and guaranteed identity from the others. Even those which are considered abstract, perhaps the set of several random seconds, or the set of several random objects, all exist superpositionally. Furthermore, what can be the standard or limit towards what is an individual identity or a collection of identity? Is not a line merely the set of infinitely many smaller identities known as the point?

From the above discussions we can deduce several things, including a general law of identity. That all things that can be differentiated from other things exist in guarantee and eternally, by virtue of rational observation and the law of existence. This includes oblivion which itself is not attached to existence. For that reason all identities exist at once, including contradictory identities, in one point or all points that is the existential superposition. This will be important for the establishment of the next law, the law of special awareness.

Special Awareness

We know that in the purest forms, that is existence, all things exist within an existential superposition. It means existentially all things exist within a single infinite point. For that matter there must be a suitable awareness, which is also superpositional. This awareness is awareness of all things that exist at once, within an infinite state of awareness that has no time. This is what is known as sensational superposition, sensation being the experience in awareness.

Yet we know of the condition of oblivion, which exists along with the existence of reality. Superpositionally it is possible to be aware of the existence of all things, but is it possible to be aware of existence and oblivion at once? No it is impossible, as rationally 0 and 1 and can not be mixed. We can possibly be aware of going left and right at the same time, but we can not be aware of moving and of oblivion at the same time.

As if mixed, it must collapse into a single finite condition, which for example, 1 and 0 would naturally be 1. As 0 means the lack of consciousness, or the lack of any conceivable information, and 1 is the presence of such information. As a result, if we combine 1 and 0, it would fuse into 1. This 0 and 1 are absolute conditions, not mathematical numbers that can be divided. There are no ½ conditions or 0.75, there is only something or nothing at all. However, since the 0 state of awareness must exist and can not combine with the 1 state, they must exist in orderly manner, or in a chronological manner.

The most important chronological implication, that consciousness is continous and is in order, is the existence of time. Time in is most fundamental state is the sustained continuation of the states of awareness from 1 state to another state. However, the existence of time also allows for other states of awareness which are not superpositional. As a state of awareness which only contains X and not  A, B, C, D, and others becomes possible. That is with the value of every other object being 0 and not 1. Then why is time the sustainment of consciousness and not reality?

Time exists when there is change, which does not happen in existential superposition. In this superposition, all that has existed and will continue to exist, so it is clear that what changes must be the awareness and not existence. It is only appropriate that time is illustrated as the continuation of consciousness from one form or state to another state and not reality. Oher than time, there is another implication by the existence of non-superpositional states of awareness.

When a sensational superposition exists, we can say that everything that exists is what can be realized and vise versa. This changes when awareness becomes limited, or in this sense we are not aware of everything at once, we can no longer say that what exists is what is in our consciousness. There are things at the time which are outside of our scope of awareness. This creates a relative existence, or a subjective existence, where certain things does not exist from our perspective.

In this matter what is realized truly exists, and what happens in our perspective truly happens. If we move from A to B for 100 m, then that truly happens. However, it is not the whole reality, instead it is a part of reality which exists. There is of course a condition where we only moved 50 m, or where we didn’t move, or where we are in an entirely different location.

Despite that, relative existence or relative reality and time is not merely consciousness moving from one condition to another condition randomly and without rule. Meaning it is not a mere conscious entity moving around from one point to another point in the space of existential superposition, but the relative world does flow and change by the forces of reality. When we walk from A to B, we are not merely moving continuously from one point to another point, but we are indeed and truly doing a process named walking. Our legs and feet truly move and step, not just a change of states.

Of course the most important implication of the existence of time and relative existence is the power of reality as a conscious entity in moving this state of awareness. An entity is able to change their world and move their world according to their will. In ordinary language, this is what we know as free will, the power to choose and act in accordance to our own will without being affected by another entity. This shall be important in another discussion.

With this short explanation, we can summarize what is known as the special awareness. Special awareness is differentiated from general awareness, where general awareness is the general principles of awareness without being affected by identity. Special awareness are the principles of awareness when it meets with identity which are “special” and difference, and there are several principles behind this concept.

That a 0/1 superposition is impossible, which signifies that states of awareness must happen in order, between 0 and 1 and so on chronologically or in time. Because of that, it is made possible for consciousness to be not aligned with superpositional reality, rather being aware of only one particular portion of reality. However, that relative reality does happen according to ours perspective of consciousness, and just a mere change from one state to another state. Lastly, reality as consciousness has the power to change the states of awareness, or concretely change their world.

Social

An important question to be asked in the problem of consciousness is the amount of conscious entities that exist. Is there only one conscious entity which is aware of reality or are there many entities which are aware of each other in unison? Axiomatically we can state that there must be many conscious entities, after all in the humanist reality we know of multiple humans that are supposedly conscious. They can speak and commonly are aware of their own existence.

This is supported when we know that consciousness is transcendent and is eternal, as well as being a fundamental trait of reality. Thus, with the state of awareness only being 0 and 1, that is conscious and unconscious, there must be 2 versions for each identity. One version has the value of “1”, and the other having conscious value, “0”. With that, the existence of conscious entities with identity is guaranteed.

Another approach is to guarantee the existence of states of awareness. States of awareness are entities or identities which should also have preserved and guaranteed existence. However, we know that there could not be a 0/1 sensational superposition. The problem is, because each state has an eternal existence, then the other state must still exist independently when we possess one state. Such that when are aware, there is something not aware, and when fell sleep, the other wakes up.

Other than that, what differentiates between one conscious entity and another conscious entity? Maybe it can be said that the definition of a special conscious entity is the perspectives. However it must be remembered that the perspectives are part of the special states of awareness. As such with the various states of awareness that exist, then the perspectives of awareness are guaranteed and the existence of special entities of awareness which coexist is guaranteed.

The implication of the existence of multiple conscious entities is highly significant, first this implies that each object has a consciousness and its own knowledge which means even without observation, its characteristics have been determined. This also means that each identity has equal power to determine their state of awareness. However this also means that within an entity experiencing superposition which for example includes identity X, there is also an entity X which experiences no superposition at all.

A question can be made, why is the social law with such brief proof becomes highly significant to the point of being included with this system of metaphysics? Before the proof of this law, we consider that there is only a single entity controlling all of this. After all all this is identical with the single entity, and thus it can be changed so and so. However with the existence of multiple entities, then the freedom of each entity is limited. There are entities which can change each other and interact, but also obey to a higher entity.

With that short explication we can formulate that within reality there is more than one entity of awareness which can mutually interact and change each other. This makes possible the limitation of consciousness or the freedom to determine states of awareness. This hierarchy of power will later be important in subsequent philosophical discussions. Of course, this means even if we are not aware of X, X is still self aware. This reestablishes the existence of absolute knowledge.

Conclusions of Metaphysics

With the explication and discussion of basic metaphysics we can formulate 5 main principles within metaphysics. The principle of existence, which states that all thing exist eternally and certainly, that existence is not determined by awareness or observation. The principle of awareness, that awareness is an essential trait of reality for the sake of the existence of knowledge and certainty of reality. That consciousness is also eternal as the oblivion of it is meaningless. That is the 2 highest laws of principles within reality.

The three next principles discuss problems of identity, or non-essential traits within reality. The first principle being identity, meaning that all difference of identity within reality is guaranteed by the principle of existence, such that all things have eternal existence. Of course this is proven primarily through axiomatic existence, that there are things that are different and separate from each other. Furthermore, the principle of identity is unlimited, such we can not say that some exist and others do not exist.

The second principle is special awareness, that there are states of awareness not aligned with the existential superposition be it through the guarantees of the principle of existence, or the 0 state of awareness. With that there must be some flow of time or flow of consciousness, that is the change of one state to another state. Then there is also relative existence, meaning what exists for us does exist, but does not constitute all of reality. And the last is that there must be a freedom to determine the flow of consciousness.

The last principle which becomes the closing of this system of metaphysics is the social principles, which states that all identities also follow the principle of consciousness. This has the implication that the freedom of an entity is limited by another entity if equal. However there is also a possibility of a freer entity that is capable of controlling other entities. What is most important however is that a conscious entity can affect other entities, and be affected by other entities.

And the most important thing not yet formulated from these 5 laws is the universality of this set of laws. Of course calling it universal would be inaccurate according our current understanding of the universe. The point is, these laws apply for all of reality, or more accurately an explanation of what is reality. So, do not see these laws as a higher entity than reality, because it is not law, it is reality itself.

Of course this is merely the most basic of bases from all metaphysics which can be arranged or described without the needs of empirical observation. For example mathematics, which is indeed a metaphysical science as it discusses things that becomes the foundation of abstract relations between entities. Not to mention ethics and cosmology as well as various other things. And we must understand that this new metaphysics does not abrogate empirical science or empirical discoveries, however it doubts and fixes the exclusive perspectives which is behind these sciences.

As a last summary, let us understand the full connection between these 5 laws or principles of reality. The existence of reality is a certain thing, and with the truth of existence, so does consciousness. Consciousness must be declared a foundation as for the reason we are able to know existence is because we have consciousness. With these 2 laws, all other things can be proved, that each identity, that are different things must exist according to the law of existence. With that, the existence of the entire world is determined.

Next is how we are aware of the world, there is a difference between states of awareness and pure existence. As everything is guaranteed in existence, 0 states of awareness is also guaranteed, and since this state is also an entity and identity, then there must be a flow of time and also relative existence according to consciousness. Freedom that is the power to change relative worlds and consciousness is also proven. Lastly is  through the establishment of consciousness as an essential trait, then each identity is guaranteed to have some sort of consciousness as well.

There is a general conclusion which we can take from all this, that most of the explanations here are axiomatic. However as according to the deeper explanations towards what is an axiom, this knowledge of metaphysics is gained through rational observations of consciousness. Or the most “naked” interpretation, without adding or reducing anything. It is also interesting that the law of existence becomes the basis for the 3 identity related laws.

This is important as it means that what is most basic in reality is indeed its existence. While consciousness exists axiomatically and as a necessary criterion. From that we can deduce that all identities exist eternally and unchanged, there is a limited perception of consciousness towards reality, and lastly there are identities which possess the perception of consciousness. We are not proving based on empirical observation, rather because we are obligated by the law of existence.

With that we can close this metaphysical arrangement, and continue to other philosophical subjects. Of course within each subsequent metaphysical subject must return to this basic metaphysics as a guide and standard of evaluation. Other philosophical studies must not violate these laws or implies a conclusion which is against this metaphysics, as that means there is something wrong with our line of reasoning. Lastly, we hope that with this metaphysics, all further philosophical research can be done better and carefully. God bless.