Metaphysics

Introduction

Metaphysics, a study either abandoned or considered done by many. This word comes from Greek that is ta meta ta phusika or literally, “that which comes after physics.” Physics here refers to Aristotle’s work which is titled Physics, and so Metaphysics is Aristotle’s work after Physics. If connected with our current understanding, it can be said that metaphysics is the study of things beyond or becomes the foundations of physics. Therefore, the object of metaphysics is a reality much more fundamental than physical laws.

At least, that is the definition according to its etymology, the official definition vary according to many philosophers but there is a common essence within them. That metaphysics study the most fundamental things of reality. Where does this boundary lie, and where does metaphysics start becoming physics is vague and to discuss that border is almost useless. However we can create a core scope of metaphysics so that our research becomes more focused.

Metaphysics tend to discuss things related to existence, time, space, identity, substance, property, and other related things. However metaphysics also becomes the base of other philosophical studies such as ethics and epistemology. Thus it is better to define metaphysics in its simplest understanding, the study of most fundamental principles of reality which is above all other principles.

As such, metaphysics should be more fundamental than physics or quantum physics even, but why isn’t this science taught in high school? Perhaps not many adults know this term either, or they have heard of it but not quite understand. There has also never been any news of a great metaphysical discovery, or an expoundment of metaphysics as the science of the foundations of reality. That title is instead given to physics, is there something wrong here?

Just like philosophy which seems to have been forgotten, metaphysics too have been forgotten. After all metaphysics is the first face of philosophy, and for me philosophy depends on it. Of course it is impossible for metaphysics to be completely forgotten, as all things are based upon it, which in this context is a set of basic assumptions on reality which is held in life. And so it is more accurate to say that the task of metaphysics is considered done.

Therefore there are two metaphysics which have slightly different roles, that is the science of metaphysics and the dialogue of metaphysics. As a science, it is done as now we have several metaphysical theories and assumptions which are considered to be the “unofficial official” theory and assumption for all sciences, that is the empirical metaphysics. On the other hand as a dialogue it is dead, for there is no longer a dialogue or conversation to keep renewing metaphysics, for it is thought that it is complete.

For that reason I still see it fit to declare that metaphysics, along with philosophy, has vanished from the public eye, only remaining in special circles in the university. Questions of what is reality and its existence seem stupid now or not considered as seriously as it should have been. Perhaps questioning such things are considered symptoms of an existential crisis or a turn towards nihilism, regrettably so as this is the beginning of a greater wisdom.

Then what is this empirical metaphysics which “killed” all other metaphysics and the dialogue of it? To summarize, there are several principles which we can deduce, that is reality exists certainly, it is material, it does not depend on observation, and sensory observation is the only source of true knowledge. These principles we hold and believe for all of our lives for granted, and now we accept them for granted as well.

As such, this chapter will reexamine those metaphysical principles, and challenge the position of empiricism in metaphysics. Though why is it important for us to challenge it? Simply put, if we wish to create a new metaphysics, then we must prove that it is truly needed. For that we must prove first that the old understanding, that is empiricism, has failed and is insufficient for the right assembly of metaphysics.

There is no use in continuing this introduction, for we throw away the old metaphysics and begin anew. Such that we effectively know nothing of metaphysics, only its purpose that is to know the foundations of reality. For that we shall investigate the current metaphysics which is empiricism, and dissect it substantially, prove that it is insufficient, and finally begin a new metaphysics. Enjoy.

  

Empiricism

 General Outline

In the previous chapter, some comments on empiricism has been made but for the sake of philosophical clarity it shall be reexplained what is empiricism. The word itself comes from Greek that is empeiria, meaning “experience”. In modern context this means sensory experience. In the Confessions, it is explained that empiricism is the view that only source of right knowledge is the senses, and that is true.

Though the style of language in the previous chapter may cause some misunderstandings, and so that statement shall be reclarified. Empiricism is an epistemological view and not a metaphysical one, at least primarily it is not, even if it is still related strongly with metaphysics. Empiricism covers foundational things of what is truth, and not what is real. These two things seem similar, but have significant philosophical distinctions.

If we speak of reality, we directly seek what is reality without concerning the bounds of knowledge.  On the other hand, truth is more about what we can know of reality and how to know the true reality. Between these two things is an interesting relationship. Objectively reality precedes knowledge, but for us humans truth is of course much more important than reality.

As knowing truth and what is truth is a guide for us to know what is reality. Our understanding of truth will directly affect our understanding of reality. Therefore, it is logical that if we have a false assumption of the truth, all others will follow in falsehood. Though there is nothing that is truely right or wrong, there will be another side. And empiricism is concerned primarily with the truth, the right way of knowing reality.

Therefore we should delve deeper into empiricism itself. What is meant by empiricism is that we can only know reality truly through our senses. For example a star, a star can only be known precisely of its existence if and only if we have observed it sensorically. However empiricism does not state that reality is determined by the senses. That is a false statement and we do not wish to attack false arguments. By that reason, an unobserved star is not non existent, rather uncertain or it can not be determined.

While empiricism is primarily concerned with what we can know of the world, this directly influences and shapes the metaphysical view according to empiricism. That unsensible things, or in scientific terms unfalsifiable or to be accurate unverifiable are false or unworthy of discussion or even not real. Though many scientists prefer to say that it is not within their scope of research and that is actually true. However there are still those who apply metaphysical empiricism.

So far we have a general outline of what is empiricism. Empiricism is the view that the right source of knowledge is the senses and none other. It is not the same with saying that reality is determined by sensory observation. This directly affects metaphysical views by saying that what can not be sensed is not true, although there may be differences of interpretation towards it.

The next step is to dissect empiricism and expose some important problems caused by empiricism. This is important as in the end our purpose is to create a new metaphysics and thus a new truth. For that reason we must prove why the current standard must be changed or why a new metaphysics is required.

Part 1-Limits of Sense

This part shall focus on how empiricism is bound and where that bound lies. That is to what limit is a knowledge considered worthy to be categorized as empirical, or to what extent does empiricism accept knowledge? In this matter we shall return to the definition of empiricism, that is the view that the only source of true knowledge is the human sensory organs.

From that it is quite clear what it means by sensory organs, that is the sense of sight, smell, taste, hearing, and touch. At least that is the common five organs we use the most and are most aware of. However empiricism supposedly does not limit what kind of sense is accepted, only that it is a sense, and not five senses. In reality humans do have more than five senses, including the sense of balance, the sense of space or proprioception, and others.

Aside from sensory experience, there is another criterion in empiricism that must be understood so we do not attack the wrong argument. That the sensory experience must be done collectively by each sensor or observer. There is an interesting logic behind this, that because reality is ideally not dependent on sensory experience, then something which is truly true and real, must be able to be sensed by every person.

Except if one has a damaged sense which the damage can be sensed by others. That is those who are disabled sensorically and can not sense as well as those who have healthy senses. Therefore a truly true and real thing must be able to be sensed by those who have healthy senses and can capture information about reality with high quality. Then what about things sensed by some but not by others?

It depends, but some things must be remembered. In empiricism, sensory experience is still below reality, as such the function of sensory experience is to find reality and not determine it. We can then conclude that those who sense different things from other people may be genuine, but that experience is incredibly rare and thus difficult to be reverified, or it could be a hallucination which is what commonly happens. This process of hallucination can also be sensed, such as the sensory disabilities which happens to some people.

False sensory experience, that is when sensation happens in the absence of an actual reality usually happens because of disturbances of the sense and also the brain. This can be verified by those with a healthy brain and sense, if there is no object being sensed, then what must be focused on are those who sense unreal things. So it can be said that false sensory experiences is a form of sensory disability as well, or to be precise a sensory disturbance.

And so the complete empiricism is certainly sensory experience through healthy and undisturbed senses, which can be verified by other experiences. In analogy, through a group of cameras which are not broken or disturbed. From there we can begin moving towards the second limit, that is between what can not be sensed at all and what can not be sensed yet due to human limits and also technological limits. These two things are commonly misunderstood even by empiricists, but are highly separate.

Truly empiricism only rejects the truth of things which can not be sensed at all. Therefore statements of faith which also defies sense or explicitly professes the unsensible is immediately rejected by empiricism. The problem is not all things that we can not sense can be categorized as that, which indeed can not be sensed at all according to the believers. Sometimes there are those who believe in things which can not be sensed yet, but is written as can not be sensed at all.

This is what happens with the world of the supernatural or the spiritual world. Many theorized about the effects of incorporeal creatures on our world, and many claims that they have an empirical effect on us. If that is so, then it is these empirical effects that should be studied and understood deeper. The foundations of spiritual understanding should rightly be reexplored and researched strictly. Although many research has declared these events as “natural” events that are not understood well enough or misinterpreted.

Then how do we differentiate between things which can not be sensed now and those which are beyond sensation? Simple, through the foundations of those hypotheses. Each hypothesis must have a base which is either empirical or not at all. For example, the theology of Thomas Aquinas explicitly states that this knowledge is derived from God, specifically the Gospel. This can be refuted immediately by empiricism as that knowledge can not be verified through senses.

What is interesting is that when a hypothesis is based upon empirical reasons, that an entity which so far can not be sensed has effects which can be sensed. By studying that effect we should be able to determine the truth of that hypothesis. In physics and astronomy, there is what is known as dark matter. A material hypothesized to be the cause of gravitational anomalies in massive galaxies. And that is the only proof of their existence, as of now. As dark matter does not interact with light at all.

What about those of spiritual nature? The same could be said, if those spiritual things have empirical effects unexplained by previously known mechanics, that would a proof for spiritual existence. As such to be more accurate it is not between those which can not be sensed at all and those which can not be sensed now, rather those which can be sensed only through its effects and those which have no existence at all and is merely the result of sensory disorder.

This is what happens with dark matter, we can not detect it directly but from its effects on an also empirical world we can extrapolate the existence of such matter. Another case is black holes, or to be accurate the singularity of black holes which can not be observed directly, but the accretion disk and the event horizon of the black hole can be observed. Though it is also true that the accretion disk and the event horizon are indeed part of the black hole, not just an effect.

And that is the complete criteria of truth from empiricism, or at least the truth of things in existence (not as a law). That first a thing must be able to be sensed by each undisturbed or healthy sensor and second there is at least a clear empirical effect from that thing to be considered empirical. There is one more question however, what is a sense?

If the sense is categorized as the five senses, this is indeed false. Then what is meant by “sense”? If we declare sense as an organ accepted scientifically, then why are those organs said as a sense? If we define sense as an organ or as a method of perception which causes perception towards reality, or an organ which provides us information about reality, what kind of reality is included?

As when we think and we realize our thoughts is that not a real thing as well? And so there are those who state that the sense is an organ which provides information on external realities or how the body accepts external stimulus. This is the reason why many things related to mind is rarely considered empirical, as the mind looks inward and not outwards. This will greatly change the understanding of empiricism or its definition, and it is no longer about hard empiricism but soft empiricism.

If the sense is defined as a tool or an organ which provides us information on external reality, that means empiricism does not reject things beyond the sense, and is not a view that states the only source of true knowledge is the sense. Rather it is a method of truth seeking through the sense, but it does not reject or make any statements about non sensory existence. This is the position many scientists take, they simply study empirical objects, but they do not reject or accept non empirical existence as that is not their job.

The problem is we know not all scientists take that agnostic position towards rationalism. Some are brave enough to deny rationalist existence, and attempt to use empiricism as their foundation. This is where the empirical hegemony comes from, those who deny rationalist existence and not those who prefer staying quiet on rationalism. And so returning to the view that the only source of true knowledge is the sense, then what is the sense?

From this we encounter a dead end as any effort to define sense will be a circular definition. Attempting to establish sense empirically will result in the subsequent argument. Since in empiricism, only the sense can be trusted, then only knowledge about the sense derived from the sense can be trusted. How do we know about the sense? From the sense as well. This will go on forever without end.

Or we can play some word games and definitions, if the sense is that which gives us knowledge of existence, isn’t the mind included as well? As we can be aware of our own mind, and speak of it. Or perhaps feelings of sadness, joy, suffering, happiness, hunger, satisfaction, and others. If that is how it is, empiricism has supported us since long, but we know that is not true. Playing with the theory may say that, but the practice is indeed not like that.

And that is the first problem of empiricism, an incredibly unclear limit on the “sense”. Yes I must accept that when this problem is ignored and we accept it by faith, all goes well. After all many discoveries and scientific knowledge that we know of the world, is a result of this empiricism, though also affected by mathematical social constructs but in its core that is how it is.

Honestly, this is also a comfortable view and does not complicate us, everything seems clear and organized. We only need to declare one category as “not real”, and the other as “real”. Then we ignore the “not real” and devote ourselves to the “real”. The result is spectacular progress in science and technology, but nearly no effort to study the so called “not real”. Ethics forgotten, and the soul abandoned.

For some people, this is not problematic, but for the entire world this is already a problem. And it is true that even at the roots of empiricism, the most important concept from empiricism is unclear in its limits. Then the empiricism which actually happens is as follows, “What exists is what is outside the mind, what is inside does not exist.” Or, what can not be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted, then it doesn’t exist. Or, if it’s only in the mind, it is not worthy of discussion.

Part 2-Extra Sensory Awareness

Continuing from the previous conclusion, empiricism is clearly troubled as what is meant as “sense” is unclear. And there are two types of empiricism, agnostic empiricism and hard empiricism. Agnostic empiricism makes no statement on extra sensory objects, and hard empiricism rejects it altogether. This is quite problematic with our initial understanding of empiricism, that it does not believe that reality is not determined by sensory experience.

If indeed empiricism is only epistemological, it means that we can only know what is sensible, or the right knowledge comes only from the sense, which is not the same as saying that there is no reality beyond the sense. We simply acknowledge that there is a sensible and unsensible reality. The meaning remains, we can only know what we can sense, what is beyond may exist or it may not, but we can not determine or know it.

That is the same as agnostic empiricism, which is actually theoretical or idealist empiricism. However many became hard empiricism, and their statement is not that we can only know through the sense, but only sensible things exist. This means all things beyond the sense is declared non existent. The solution to this problem is simple, that is by providing a counter example of knowledge outside sense at all, or extra sensory experience.

If we are truly living and conscious humans we should be conducting extra sensory awareness daily. When we feel an emotion or feeling, that is certainly from within ourselves and not what we categorize as sense. Or when we think about our thoughts, or become aware of what we are thinking, that is not included as sensory experience. Or every perception we receive, is seen as sensory experience but in actuality it is not.

In sensory experience there are two elements, the subjective element and the objective element. Objective sensory experience is the mechanical process of sensation, for example the reception of photons through our eyeballs. Sensation as referred by hard empiricism is this mechanical sensation. Objective as it refers to the mechanics or the object of sensation, that is the sensory organ and the reception of sensory information.

And there is subjective sensation, that is all of our perceptions as it is in reality, that is how it feels to see, how it feels to touch, to hear, or the feeling of sadness, happiness, rational awareness, and all other things in relation with feeling. It is subjective as this is sensation according to us, and how reality seems to us. Subjective as well because we can not know what reality seems through other people’s perspectives, it may be the same or it may be different.

A famous thought experiment relating to this is about color. Say the color red, we know that it exists. An object that looks red is blood. But even if we label it red, is it certain that the subjective perception of red by others are the same? Perhaps, my red is your green, and your green is my red. Thus if the objective color is the difference of wavelengths and frequency in light, the subjective color, the real one is the feeling towards that difference.

In philosophy, feeling is commonly said as qualia, which is the base for qualitative. Qualia can not be sensed at all, as it is not an objective sensation. Qualia is always in the first person view and we can not explain it in third person, which is often required in empirical research. The problem is it is this qualia being forgotten and due to its abandonment, problems from a disorganized qualia begins to leak into the empirical world.

In truth, qualia is the essence of human consciousness, what is meant by conscious is being able to feel. This is different from computation or intelligence, which is often taken as the same with consciousness by some scientists. Recently there is a developing view that consciousness is simply the product of brain complexity or the complexity of a system. And so what is wrong is it is not consciousness being a product of complexity, but computation being a product of complexity.

The difference between computation and consciousness is incredibly clear, computation can be sensed from a third person view and can be explained empirically its mechanics. In computation, it is the consequence of basic physical laws which cause processing of information and rearrangement of information into new or different information. Meanwhile consciousness can not be sensed from third person and its mechanics can not be explained empirically.

It is true that some scientists do reject the existence of qualia, and whatever their reasoning is it is certainly not too logical. And it should not be surprising that they are atheists as well. As accepting the existence of qualia is the first step of knowledge of God. The moment the rejection of it happens, all things in relation to ethics, soul, and God will disappear by itself. Personally, this is nonsensical as how can one reject their own qualia? Unless they don’t have qualia, then it can be understood. But since qualia is subjective, we may never know.

In the end, empiricism is quite irrational as it rejects qualia which becomes the source of our sensations, but accept the consequence of qualia that is sensation. It is difficult for us to refute deeper as this is related to qualia which exists a priori, from the beginning. And empiricism does not give much proof or reason that qualia is indeed not real. It is simply a baseless denial. Perhaps equal to delusional people who see none, but claims sight, or sees, but claims blindness.

Part 3-Validity of the Sense

Previously we analyze things which are rejected by empiricism and the problems as a result of that rejection. Now we shall finish our examination of empiricism, and challenge the things which are accepted and acknowledged by empiricism as right knowledge. We know that in empiricism, the only source of true knowledge is the sense and none other. Anything beyond the sense is unworthy of discussion or even non existent.

However we have known as well that there are two types of sensation, that is the sensation of feeling or subjective sensation and mechanical sensation or objective sensation. The question being, how could we know of the objective or mechanical sensation? Certainly through sensation as well, but when we study the ocular nerves to discover mechanical seeing, what are we using? Mechanics or feeling? The right answer should be feeling, for the following reason.

When we see, how do we form conclusions on what we see? What object is used as our analysis? Certainly it is the images resulting from that sight, and not an abstract arrangement of photons in a particular order. What we truly have is not the photons, but our experience of the arrangement of photons in such manner that it forms a coherent image. Then true sensation is not empirical sensation as it is not the most real, rather rationalist sensation or the feeling sensation.

From that point, it is now clear the true form of sensory experience as adored by empiricism, the experience of feeling and qualia simply in different form. In truth there is no difference between internal qualia, that is emotion and awareness of our mind, and external qualia which comes from things outside of us, say the taste of food, the sensation of hot and cold, the sight of light or darkness or color. All of that is just qualia, and from that qualia we know mechanics.

So, since empiricism rejects qualia or doubts things which are difficult to verify sensorically, we shall now do the same to the sense. The empirical assumption is that things which their effects can be sensed collectively by each healthy and undisturbed sensor exists. But what is the proof? What can make one certain that sensation proofs the existence of objects? Is sensory experience not just qualia or experiences of feeling?

Say a red apple, and we see that red apple. An empiricist will deduce its existence, but we must ask, for what reason does it exist? Why sensing it proves that the apple exists? In truth we could not say of such things, it is a logical leap from the true reality. What we can acknowledge is that we see a red apple, and not that the red apple exists. Perhaps we can hypothesize that the red apple exists, but not know of its existence.

What if other people saw the red apple and acknowledge its existence as well? The same thing, all we have is our sensations towards other people and the red apple, as such it is not right for us to claim knowledge on the existence of anything other than our sensation towards other people and the red apple. Even if other observers do exist, we only know our sensation and we do not know if others have feeling sensation as well or only mechanical sensation.

With that, the human sense and its validity in determining truth can be questioned and doubted. After all what we have is only subjective sensation which is simply qualia. Of course, the point of this rebuttal is not the rejection of sensory experience, rather to question the hard paradigm of empiricism which deifies sensation excessively. The logic of empiricism is severely inconsistent in its roots, regardless of its surface consistency. And empiricism depends on that inconsistent behavior.

When we attempt to be consistent in our thinking, that is about what is sensation and awareness, the result is that not even sensation can be trusted. As what we have is only the subjective sensation of reality, and other people’s sensations we know not nor have. If we take the other path, then all qualia should be accepted scientifically. Furthermore, must the acceptance of extrasensory knowledge always be blind belief?

It is quite possible and even provable to organize and formalize an extra sensory knowledge. The theology of the Catholic Church, specifically the theology of Thomas Aquinas is an example of the application of scientific methods on supernatural things. Not all knowledge in the Gospel is accepted plainly, rather it is harshly analyzed so that misinterpretation does not happen. The story of creation too is acknowledged by the Church as figurative and not literal. Then why does empiricism keep insisting on the rejection of qualia or things unsensed rather only thought?

The impression is we are playing with an either/or fallacy, where there are only two options, either accept all or reject all. But the reality is that it is a zero sum game, whether we win all the qualia or we lose all the qualia. There is no real difference between internal feeling and subjective perception towards external reality. If we wish to reject internal feeling as mere external mechanics, prepare as a human with integrity to reject subjective perception as well. And whatever happens, empiricism always loses.

Conclusion

From the examination of the roots of empiricism it is proven that empiricism has several core problems. First, the difference between what can rightly be considered as the sense and not sense is unclear and even circular. Second, empiricism rejects internal and subjective consciousness that is qualia which is more fundamental than “empirical” or “mechanical” consciousness. Third, when the understanding of qualia is straightened and restated, sensation must be questioned as well as it is truly part of qualia.

With that, this proves sufficiently that empiricism is unworthy to know the whole reality rightly. Empiricism for what it acknowledges is highly consistent, skeptical, accurate, and has given us mankind numerous technological and scientific advancements empirically. Beyond that and empiricism has caused the regression of ethical and spiritual development of humanity, or it may potentially kill it.

As a last word before beginning the new metaphysics, I would like to reemphasize that this rebuttal towards empiricism does not mean that the sense is not a source of true knowledge. Nor does it declare empirical research as false, on the aspect of what they research it is still correct. What is wrong from empiricism is the attempt to single out the source of knowledge and throw away all others.

Therefore the effort of the construction of the new philosophy is not the destruction of empirical methods, rather the completion and advancement of such methods, until we obtain a complete theory and knowledge of reality and finally our true self. As such empirical research will not fade but cooperate with other rational research. Empiricism and rationalism must join and unite into one theory of reality which truly applies for all reality.

For that reason, that is my rebuttal towards empiricism, and now let us move forward into the new metaphysics. Amen.

  

Existence

Foreword

In the matters of the determination of existence, what is most important to be determined at first is the existence of that reality. Knowledge of the existence of an object is the very first knowledge and most fundamental of all knowledge of that object. It is true that its general property ccan be known, but what we know is the existence of those properties and not what they are or their effect on the form of an object.

For that reason, discussions of the whole reality shall begin with is fundamental existence. Therefore this part serves to discuss in whole the mechanics of the existence of reality and true properties of existence. This includes the absolute existence of reality, the criterion of existence, the eternity of existence, and what can be said to exist. This shall be the foundation of all subsequent metaphysics, and thus all philosophy. With that, let us begin with the absolute existence of reality.

Part 1-The Absolute Existence of Reality

Before we determine any other property of existence, we must establish the absolute existence of reality. By absolute I mean the purest existence that we can know of. It is therefore not material existence obviously, rather something much more fundamental. It could rational existence, or another existence. Absolute also means at this very moment, without considering the past, the future, or any other criteria. The question that we shall answer is, “Does reality exist absolutely?”

Answering this question is difficult as we have no knowledge of reality yet. Despite that we can try each answer and test it. In this case we judge each answer according to itself, and see if that answer stands up to scrutiny or falls into self contradiction. If that is so, then the other answer must be true. This trial and error method may seem ineffective, but we only have 2 possible answers, exist or not exist, and so it would not take much time.

The first answer is that it exists, that reality does exist absolutely. We often accept this without examining it deeper but what is the proof of this statement? In fact it feels like it was taken axiomatically, by some “intuition” which states that the existence of reality is true as is. That answer may be true but at this point we have insufficient evidence to prove or justify its truth. For that reason we must move to the second answer first.

The second answer is non existence, that reality does not exist absolutely. This too we reject intuitively without much thought, as just at a glance that is already incredibly absurd and nonsensical. It may be true that the non existence of reality is absurd, but if we do not understand why it is absurd, there is no use. And so it is better for us to attempt to more carefully examine this answer.

The reason we can deny the existence of reality is in fact we have no understanding what is existence or reality. Sensory or empirical observation can not be trusted and what we have is only the observation, not the object. It could be that all this is an illusion or the dreams of an old man. The point is, we can not trust anything and there is nothing we can be certain of, and that is why the answer of the non existence of reality arises.

From that we can form a single conclusive statement about reality, “Reality does not exist”. The problem is when we create that statement, we have created a reality, which is that statement. For that reason, by declaring the non existence of reality, we have violated the statement itself. If we wish to truly reject reality and prove, then we should not have thought of anything at all. However this means we would never know or desire to know of the true reality.

That is the first alternative, and not an enjoyable alternative as it means no knowledge at all and that we should never have stepped on this path. The second alternative is that we reject that denial. This denial is axiomatic and is no better than our first answer of the existence of reality. Or better yet, we reject the rejection of the rejection, then reject the rejection of the rejection of the rejection. This will not resolve until the end of times.

The third alternative is for us to accept the absolute existence of reality after rejecting that existence. This is most rational and logical, as even if we reject all other sensations, we must accept that we are indeed denying. If we don’t accept, it means we must never reject in the first place. Therefore it must be established and accepted that the first answer is true no matter the result, and the existence of reality is indeed true.

With that analysis it can be concluded with certainty that reality exists. The question has been answered as follows, “Reality exists absolutely”. For even if we reejct reality, we can not continue to reject the arising rejection, or we will gain no truth of reality. With that the first question of the existence of reality is resolved, and we shall move on to the next.

Part 2-Knowledge of Reality which Exists Absolutely

From the first part we know clearly that reality exists absolutely, and this is irrefutable whatever our answer. However clearly we have leaped over something intuitively, that is why we can conclude existence. The impression is it’s clear, we reject, and there is a rejection. Then that is our reason to accept absolute existence, but at the same time we are capable of seeing, capable of sensing, why do we reject that?

We can just reject the rejection, and declare as an axiom and the sole declaration of philosophy, as we both reject an experience of feeling. The difference is one is rational and the other is empirical. However this is not equal, rejecting the empirical only requires us to turn off all our senses and plug our brains into a senseless computer. On the other hand, rejecting the rational means suicide as we eliminate the mind.

Furthermore we don’t only reject the empirical, we too reject the rational. From which a single rational object remains, that is the rejection itself. And so what is meant is all this we acknowledge consciously, and we do everything consciously. That is why we can be aware of all things that happen and finally become aware of this rejection. So the reason we know of existence and we can conclude so is consciousness, that is all.

The first step is indeed to reject all objects which we realize as mere object of consciousness (only subjective, not objective), then we deny the existence of that object as well (it can be manipulated). Until we accept the rejection that exists as proof of existence. From that it is clear that there is an unwritten metaphysical assumption since the beginning, that is existence is what can be made aware of. I did not write this in the beginning as we have not known anything with certainty yet.

But now we have known and we can know more about what has been done. From that work it is revealed that we know of the absolute existence from our consciousness. Consciousness to be exact the feeling of consciousness, and not the computational or sensory aspect of it. Computation and sensors is found within machine, but feeling is not within machine. In truth this affirms sensory experience but also mental experience as an equally valid source of knowledge.

For that reason it can be concluded that the valid source of knowledge is our consciousness, especially the feeling we possess. A machine may deduce the same thing but does not “know” it as feeling is not within machine. This is important as this establishes consciousness as the source of all subsequent philosophy, but especially rational consciousness and not empirical consciousness. And that is the origin of the knowledge of the absolute existence.

Part 3-Existence beyond Consciousness

Previously we have known that the source of knowledge of existence is consciousness. In other words, what is made aware of is what exists. Meanwhile this leads to the view that there is no existence outside of consciousness, that is what we are not conscious of does not exist, and when we are unconscious the world is non existence. And that is the concept of non existence outside of consciousness. For that we shall determine if that is true or false, if there is indeed no existence outside of consciousness or simply no knowledge outside of consciousness.

There are 3 possible answers, first that there is no existence beyond consciousness, second that there is existence outside of consciousness, and third that there is no certainty of existence outside of consciousness. Claiming uncertainty is a safe path but ineffective and undesired in philosophy. As it is simply saying, “I don’t know,” and is not a real answer. For that we will only discuss the first and second answers, beginning with the second.

Say there is existence outside of consciousness, how can we know and declare it? If we imagine, “An object outside of consciousness right now”, that object is still in our consciousness, as we are thinking of it. Whatever we do, it must be that the object will be in our awareness and it simply affirms the supremacy of consciousness. For that we have not enough evidence to hold this answer.

If there is no existence outside of consciousness, this means existence is what we can be aware of and existence only applies when we are aware or “awake”. Once we die, all existence will fade, and before we are born, all existence has not begun. This means there is a beginning and end to existence as there is a beginning and end to consciousness. This seems quite logical, as when we are unconscious we are not in the “place” to know anything.

The problem is this violates the laws of causality especially when we analyze the beginning of consciousness. Before there is consciousness there is none, then there is consciousness. Does that not mean there is something which begins and causes that consciousness? This cause must certainly exist and have existence, not just not exist. And this cause exists before consciousness, therefore it is certain that if consciousness has a beginning, then there is existence outside of it.

From that we know that existence has an objective property, unaffected by the subject that is consciousness. This justifies our previous statement about knowledge and consciousness. That the subject (we) obtain knowledge only from consciousness, as it is the definition of knowledge. Therefore it is a statement about the subject and not the object (about the observer and not the observed). As a result, we shall study objective existence first, then the subjective. As it is the most fundamental existence.

Part 4-Objective Existence and Subjective Existence

Previously we know of the objective existence, and so there must be a subjective existence. Understanding the difference between both is necessary to continue into the next problem. Precisely, what is meant by objective existence is the definition of existence according to its object, that is the properties of existence itself. Subjective existence is the definition of existence according to its subject, that is referring to the properties of observation towards existence.

Although both defines existence, the two objective and subjective perspectives are radically different. Subjectively, what exists is what can be made aware of. This means all things that can be imagined exist, but this means things which objectively is not existence is considered as existence as well. For example nothingness. We clearly can imagine nothingness, talk about it, and be aware of the non existence of a thing as a thing clearly separate from existence.

In subjective existence, existence is the experience of consciousness, and this means what is considered existent is limited by the limits of consciousness itself. Relying on subjective existence will lead to a false understanding of nothingness and other concepts such consciousness being higher than existence. Nothingness is treated as its own object, which it is not, and equal to existence.

Objective existence, even if obtained through subjective methods have an essential difference that is the differentiation of existence and nothingness. Existence is not a problem of consciousness, rather if an object has certain properties which enables us to become aware of it. Nothingness is the opposite of existence, that is condition without any property except the property of non property and non description.

So far we understand more about subjective existence as that is what we have since the beginning, and we do not know objective existence beyond that. However identifying the difference is important in this basic metaphysics, and even more important to be able to unite the two. The difference is quite clear, using subjective perspective, a thing exists because we observe it. In the objective perspective, a thing exists as it has a certain property which can be described such that we can observe it.

In this subchapter of existence we shall purely discuss objective existence, as that is indeed the true existence. Discussing subjective existence will not tell us of existence rather of consciousness. Though consciousness will often be referred to to reinforce the objective concepts. From that it is hoped that the differences between objective existence and subjective existence are clear.

Part 5-Existence and Nothingness

It is true that previously we have covered what is existence and nothingness, but in this part it shall be restated the meaning of true existence and also true nothingness. Subjectively, existence is what can be made aware of, this is problematic as this means all things exist as long as we can be aware of it. Things such as darkness and cold which are actually the absence of things also become their own objects. However they are not true nothingness.

True nothingness is truly “not”, that is what we can not explain or describe its property as it has none. Nothingness has no shape, space, time, location, capability, origin, and so on. If there is just one of those things, it is no longer nothingness but it is pure existence. Even a single arbitrary point containing “nothing” within in the point, if it just has a coordinate, it is no longer nothing but it is a point. Empty regions are just the same, if it can be described, it has become existence.

There are some things which are almost nothing but since they still have property it is not nothing rather an existence. Empty spacetime without any particles is sometimes described as void, but that is wrong. In quantum perspective, there still many fluctuations of energy, virtual particles, and so on. Even a truly empty spacetime, meaning a zero quantum energy (almost impossible), is still not nothing as it is only temporary nothingness and still has property.

A phenomenon of consciousness which can fool is the observation or awareness of nothingness. This is an objective and subjective problem as on one side we should not be able to be aware of nothingness, as it has not property, but in reality we are still capable of being aware of it. The solution is simple, that is by realizing that nothingness has one property. This property is the property of non property and non description. This means we can realize nothingness as an object which is different and has existence, even if it is actually nothing.

Even so, it is still impossible to experience nothingness fully, what is know to be “emptiness” is not emptiness. It is simple the moment when we are aware of our own self, or awareness towards awareness, without any other attributes or object. This is pure consciousness, not nothingness. The purest nothingness for us is the non existence of consciousness, that is the absence of experience and feeling itself. In analogy it is when the computer itself is gone, that is pure nothingness. We can rationalize it as an idea, but never as the pure.

In another perspective, it is not wrong to state that nothingness is a type of existence as well in reality, or one of the conditions which exist in reality. After all it can be made aware of as a metaphysical object, with the condition that it is a special object. An object defined as the negation of all other objects. An existence defined as the opposition towards all other existence. With the clarity of what is nothingness, what becomes the limit of existence is also clear.

This limitation of nothingness reinforces that existence is not just the materialist or collective consensus. So several questions of the existence of a thing which is often put forth and becomes a controversy is very wrong. This falseness occurs due to the lack of a description of what kind of existence is hoped for or asked for. This is highly visible in debates of the existence of God, between atheists and theists. The question should not be, “Does God exist?” rather, “Does God exist materially?” If that is so then the answer is clear.

If it is just the abstract existence of God without the manner of existence clarified, then clearly atheists have lost since the first conception of a monotheistic God or any conception of God was made. Unless existence is limited according to empirical perspective, then atheists can debate quite well. The problem is not all theists acknowledge empiricism, some profess rationalism or revelation and when the epistemological paradigm itself is different, a good debate is impossible and will only misguide both sides.

So atheists and theists should not be debating about God, but the roots that is empiricism and rationalism. This is to uniform the paradigm of existence which are already different. If there is an atheist and a theist and both are empiricists, a clear debate can happen. However if the basic definition of what is existence is already different, or the standard of truth is already different what should be discussed is that basic definition. When the definition has been agreed upon, then the proposition is debated, so there are no different interpretations and the debate goes well.

Once more, the criterion for a thing to be considered existent is to have at least a single property which can be made aware of. What is considered nothingness if it has no property which can be made aware of. Of course this refers to absolute existence, what is needed is only idealist existence or rational awareness and it is fulfilled. Other than that, what is meant by nothingness as an idea is also not true nothingness, it is an idea we are being aware of, an idea which has property. Therefore if one wishes to state nothingness as existence because of that, it can be quickly refuted with the fact that we are only discussing the idea of nothingness, as it is impossible to experience it directly.

With that it is hoped that the difference between existence and nothingness is quite clear. That existence is property, and nothingness is the opposite of property or non property and non description. This concept shall be useful in the discussion about the condition of the whole reality, and the relation between existence and nothingness. 

Part 6-The Beginning and End of the Existence of Reality

This problem has been answered indirectly in part 3 in regards to existence beyond consciousness, but to be clearer it will be rediscussed exclusively. The question of the beginning and end of the existence of reality is clear, whether the existence of reality can begin or end or both. The existence of reality means reality itself can not end, there will always be a describable reality, be it with property (exist) or without property (non existent). Therefore what is meant by existence in this case is the existence of objects of property within existence.

To be specific what is meant is the beginning and end of existence, and not whether existence can fluctuate between existence and non existence, which is also impossible for reasons that shall be put forth. To simplify things, we shall analyze this problem from the beginning of existence. If existence has a beginning, that means there is a time or period where reality is nothingness. Then a time after it where reality is existence, and a point between the two eras where change happens.

If we throw away all laws of causality, this can happen, but causality is a basic assumption that must be hold. So logically something caused that existence. This is a problem, as nothingness should have no property let alone the power of causation. This cause must be something which is and not which is not. Thus there was never any period of nothingness, and even if we attempt infinite regression, all there is is existence, no nothingness.

This means existence has no beginning but can it have an end? It seems it could have and we may be tempted to state so if we only base it upon the principle of causality. However we judge according to the principle of nothingness and not causality. Nothingness means the absence of property except for the property of non property and non description. If that nothingness can be described temporally or causally, as a result or effect from something else (which exists), or happen after something else (which exists), it is not nothing rather existence in disguise.

This means existence must be eternal and have no beginning and end, at the same time nothingness is also eternal and has no beginning nor end. This is rightful for nothingness as it has no temporal property. That which is eternal is the same with having no temporal property as time makes no sense with the concept of eternity. This eternity is also an eternity which does not change at all which means no time. As such there is no fault in describing nothingness as eternal.

Although existence and nothingness coexists separately in forever disunion, they are clearly not equal. Nothingness can not change existence or destroy nothingness at all. In existence there is change, but in nothingness there is no change at all. Existence has an infinite unique properties, and nothingness is zero. From the macro perspective, reality is always existence and never half exist or anything. In mathematical analogy, 1+0=1. A final note, things can only come from things, and only nothing can come from nothing.

Part 7-Identity

Previously we have known that the existence of reality as a whole is eternal and without end. However does all of existence in reality have an eternal property? Or is there an eternal substance and all others are not eternal? To answer this question we must understand first the concept of identity. Identity means the difference of each different object, from which we can say that x=/=y. Therefore we wish to know if there are only a finite amount of eternal identities or are all identities eternal?

The simplest identity in reality is between an object with existence and nothingness itself. In this case, nothingness is the object with the property of non property and non description, and existence is all things with property and not nothingness. Nothingness has been proven as an eternal object which can not be created nor destroyed, as it is the opposite of all those. Absolute existence is also eternal, but it is unclear what kind of existence is it.

Thus there will be two things that will be proven in this part regarding identity, that is whether there is a unity of existence or each identity is separate, and whether there is one eternal identity or all of them are eternal. First, what counts within the identity of existence? Objectively this is all things with property even if we are not aware of them yet. Subjectively it is all things which can be thought of, not sensed, but thought. So it might be that there is an infinite amount of this identity.

Identity is absolute, and refers to all of properties of an object, not just the internal but also the external. External means in reference towards the relation between an object with its world or another object. For example the temporal property, object A in different times are two objects which are absolutely different. Or spatial property, object A on two different coordinates are two different objects, even if both are internally identical. An object A can only be said to be the same with object A if all of its properties be it internal or external is identical as well.

In other words, if between two objects, is a difference of value just one infinitesimal in one property, regardless of the identicality of all other properties, it is already two different objects. It is true that there is a hierarchy of identity, say every object made from wood has the same identity as a wood product. Or each table has the same identity as a table. But what we focus on is the absolute identity, therefore all of its properties or description must be considered.

Indeed we can imagine all identities or at least almost all of it, but what we seek is not the establishment of their existence. Rather their eternity as an existence. This can begin with a single object, say object X. We have established object X as certainly eternal, as nothingness is eternal then object X must be eternal as well. Say we wish to create a second object X, so internally identical but they have some differences externally. Then where does the second object X come frome?

This second object X must not come from nothingness and must not end in nothingness, that would violate the principle of nothingness. As such there can only be two alternatives, either the second object X already exists eternally as with the first object X, or the second object X comes from the first object X. Whatever happens, it means there are two object X which is eternal, without beginning and without end.

With that, it means there is an infinite amount of object X which eternity is guaranteed. Even if they are contained within a single object X, in truth it is already infinite as the proof is one object X can multiply without a reduction in substance, which is just the same with being infinite. This also guarantees every object which is a derivative of object X or a change of object X in an infinite amount as well.

What is the limit to this derivation of X? There is no limit, be it derivation of quantity, say A is made up of 3 object X. Or temporal derivation, spatial, rotational, arrangement, and so on. Then how about an object X which is absolutely not a derivative of object X? This is easier to prove, as object Y can not be a derivative of nothingness or X, and so it has existed eternally as well. Add one more Y, and its infinite amount is also proven.

Therefore, each identity which can be produced, whether derivative or non derivative has been proven its eternity and its infinity. Actually it is not our purpose to prove that each identity is infinite, but it is an additional consequence of our reasoning. An additional note on derivative identities, even if it is formed from other original identities, it is still a different identity absolutely from its elements.

Then we do we know the amount of non derivative identities which becomes the basis of derivative identities? No, we do not, it could be one original identity and all others is just a copy or change and modification of that identity. Maybe objectively all are just mathematical derivatives, but subjectively we know that perhaps all things are original identities. Even after being rearranged many times, but it has become so different that we can not say that they are derived from a predecessor identity. But that is not our task, our task is to prove the eternity of identity, and that task is done.

Part 8-Absolute Reality

And so with all knowledge of existence we can determine what is the absolute reality which is most real, most objective, which has existed, still exists, and will exist for all eternity with or without consciousness. Thus, this is our highest and purest absolute reality. Continuing from our previous understanding, we know that all identities exist eternally, meaning each identity never changes as its existence is constant.

This means time doesn’t exist, as time is only meaningful when change happens, including the change of consciousness. In absolute reality, all stops eternally, and does not change. However this does not mean that time or change absolute does not have a place in reality, simply that the two are not the most fundamental properties of reality. Or the most basic property of any object. The highest property of each object of reality is still an eternal and unchanging existence.

Of course each different state of reality is its own object, even if it is different by an infinitesimal. Therefore there is no change between one condition to another, as all things have existed, if there is an absolute change that is the same thing with something becoming nothing and nothing becoming something. This will violate the principle of nothingness which has become the foundation for all of our reasoning on existence. Perception and universal sets may change, but the set of reality is set and does not change.

This highest reality which can not be realistically accessed by humans can be called as the infinite superposition. As this means all things exist at once, which means reality is within various positions and properties at once, even those that seem contradictory. Infinite as indeed each identity has an infinite amount. In truth there are no properties that truly “contradict”, say going right and going left at the same time. The only matching opposition to each identity is nothingness itself, the opposite of all existence.

As so, this may be the absolute reality but only absolute in terms of existence. We only know that at the purest condition, all reality exists in a point containing all things which have exist, is existing, and will keep existing. But the possibility of a universal set where time and change happens within that point exists. Moreover this only covers objective existence, and not subjective existence which will certainly be different from objective existence. But for this task, we are done.

Theory of Objective Existence

This shall be a summary of all theories of objective existence as expounded upon within the 8 parts. First, it is discussed about the absolute existence of reality, then we delve deeper into the source of knowledge and the philosophical method towards objective existence. In parts 3 and 4, the objective nature of existence is established and differentiated from subjective existence. In part 5, it is the establishment of existence and nothingness, part 6 is the discussion of the eternity of existence. And the last parts, 7 and 8, is the establishment of eternal identities and the state of the absolute existence of reality.

Based upon that we can summarize reality according to objective existence in a single complete formula. That reality in essence has an eternal existence, with infinite and equally eternal identities. With that reality does not change in real, but so far it is our perception that changes. There is as well nothingness as a special object which is without property except for the property of non property and non description, which has no origin, has no end, and is also eternal. Then the criterion of subjective existence is to be made aware of, be it ideally or materially. And that is the theory of the infinite superposition, the theory of objective existence. God bless.

Identity

Foreword

In the previous chapter we have succeeded in describing reality in the widest scale, that is the laws applying to all real objects, foremost on their existence. There is one concept which holds an important role in the second half of this theory, that is the concept of identity. Identity here refers to all properties and description from an object which is truly unique and different from other objects. This is different from the human concept of identity, identity in time, or the minimal criterion of identity, and others.

In reality, identity is the second basic “identity” or property of absolute reality. This is clear from our rational observation, that in addition to reality having existence it is also made up of difference. There is no single substance or matter which unites all reality clearly enough other than the substance of existence itself but we know that all things in reality are different and this difference is always constant, it does not become more or less, rather without limit. For that reason it is only right for us to seek further the basic properties of identity, and how an identity acts towards the law of conservation of existence.

Part 1-Identity in the Superpositional Perspective

Previously we define identity objectively, that is according to what is identity internally or in essence. That identity is every property and description of an object which makes it different from other objects. In the chapter of existence we consider more the absolute identity, and this covers the external properties that is the relation between an object and another identity as well. Say spatial-temporal coordinates, which can differentiate two internally identical objects.

That understanding of identity is sufficient for the previous chapter but now we must create a new definition of identity, according to the superpositional perspective. In this case we analyze the relationship between identity and the infinite superposition. When the two things are compared a massive disparity can be observed. The superposition is infinite, and it can not be described in a finite amount of time. Meanwhile identity is finite, and can be described in a finite amount of time.

What is interesting as well is when we too consider the identity of nothingness, and we can see that there are 2 extremes with one largest group as its balance. In the first extreme is the absence of all properties except for the property of non property and non description, on the second extreme is the existence of all properties, that is the infinite superposition or the absolute reality itself. In absolute reality is every identity including the identity of nothingness.

From that we can understand identity as a part of reality, but not a single one of them is the whole of it. And in truth identity itself is absurd as how can we speak of limits in an infinite reality? That is the keyword, limits. Identity is a limitation upon reality towards several certain properties or aspects which becomes the definition of that identity. Or it can be explained as an identity of absolute reality where only some of its properties have a value of 1 or existent, and all other properties have a value of 0 or non existent.

In mathematics this is called a set, but of course the scope is different as sets in mathematics is more often used to group mathematical identities, that is numbers or operations. Nevertheless the concept is the same, that is the grouping as well as limitation towards one or several basic identities which forms a new identity. With that definition, we are now ready to move on towards the next parts.

Part 2-Levels of Identity

So far we have only spoken of absolute identities or identities which are described completely, which makes it truly different from another object. However there are more than one level of identity, not just absolute. This can be illustrated through the superpositional understanding of identity. Since identity is a limit towards reality, these limits can be refined or broadened.

An identity without limits which is actually not an identity is the absolute reality, as there is no limit to its property. Absolute identity is the condition where its limits reach the maximum level. Within absolute identity there is always only one member, as each object is different. From absolute identity we can reduce its limits into general identity, and this states the similarity between several absolute identities. Or derivatively, a group of absolute identities is a derivation from a certain identity.

And of course general identity still has more levels, there are those with more limits to the point that all members are internally identical but externally different. Say a group of balls all with a diameter of 1 arranged in an area. Internally they are all the same, but externally each of those balls are different. However since what is being considered is its internal identity, each of those balls are categorized as the same thing.

There is also general identities which are very general, say the general identity of all objects which are table. According to the general properties of a table, we can find multiple objects which are absolutely highly distinct, but in general are the same objects, they have the same property. Or they are all derivative identities from the original identity that is the table.

The difference between general identity and absolute identity will be quite useful in subsequent philosophies, though it is still far ahead. The point is absolute identity refers to the absolute difference between one object and another object, where a difference of one value has turned those two objects different. This will be important in mathematics later on. General identity refers to basic identities which becomes the shapers of other identities, or in the derivation of identity. This is important in science in general or in the formation of categories.

Part 3-Static Identity and Dynamic Identity

The conclusion of the theory of objective existence gives the impression that all reality is static and unchanging. But does that mean all identity must be static that is unchanging? This is intuitive but contradicts our own experiences. We experience change every second, every day, and this writing is produced too because of change. Furthermore a dynamic identity or that which can change can be imagined, so it must exist.

The problem is change implicates a heavy violation towards the law of eternal existence which is based on the principle of nothingness. Then how do we reconcile these two things? Say if there is an object X which can change conditions between A, B, C, D, and E. If that object can change, does that not mean that sometimes A disappears but B exists, then B vanishes, and A exists? That is true, but we must remember that there is an infinite amount of X, and each derivative state of X is its own identity which has its own guaranteed existence.

With that, there is always X-A, X-B, X-C, X-D, X-E, which becomes the guaranteed derivative identity from original identity X.  Each of those identities are statics, meaning they can not change and its existence does not violate eternal existence. What of the dynamic X? Just add one more general identity, that is the X which can change states between A to E. This will not violate the principle of nothingness or eternal existence., as the static identities of X becomes the elements of the dynamic identity which becomes some form of derivative identity from all static identities of X.

Thus any change that happens within a dynamic identity will not affect the absolute existence of other identities. Perhaps it could be described as if change within dynamic identities is akin to different static identities entering and exiting the dynamic identity. As such dynamic identities becomes some sort of “container” which contains states at a certain point, and can eject them again at another point.

Imagine it like this, there is a jar which can be filled with either an apple, orange, banana, grape, or rambootan. According to the law of eternal existence, it means there are 5 types of jars which exists at once, that is the apple jar, orange jar, banana jar, grape jar, and rambootan jar, and all exist infinitely. Those 5 types of jars will not change at all, if it is apple it will continue be apple, orange will continue be orange, and so on.

Then there is a special jar, which insides can be change if we wish, from apple to orange, orange to grape, and so on. The change of this dynamic jar can be imagined as putting in the apple in the jar, and taking out the orange from that jar. The point is there is a fruit inside of it, then when change happens, that fruit is taken out and replaced with another fruit. Since the static identity is eternal, the dynamic identity does not violate the principle of nothingness or eternal existence at all.

Between statics and dynamics, certainly the most important is the dynamic identity. If statics are the guarantee of existence, dynamics are the movers of it, and after all we too are dynamic identities and live in one dynamic identity known as the universe. All things that we will study tend to be dynamic as well, though still we sometimes study static identities, when we focus on the property at that very moment and not the potentiality. For that we shall understand deeper regarding dynamic identities.

Part 4-Levels of Dynamic Identity

Not all dynamic identities have the same level of dynamicity, though all have the same essence, that is being capable of changing its own state or identity. However there are dynamic identities which are much more dynamic than other dynamic identities and for that we shall uncover what is that hyper dynamic identity. There are only two types that we shall cover, that is the ruled and unruled.

Ruled dynamic identity as its name has a rule towards the change of their states. Say in the example of the fruit jar, there is a special rule which states that the change of the contents of the jar must be in the order of apple, orange, banana, grape, rambootan and then it repeats over and over. Or perhaps a rule which states that the change of states only involves apple and orange, just between those two values continuously.

The rule of the dynamic identity does not always have to be an “organized” or looping rule, it may be that it is chaotic and has no repetition. Or perhaps the rule “changes” at a certain point. Say after following a certain order for 5 cycles, then the order is reversed until the end or some other derivative. Or perhaps a completely random rule without any patterns. What it means by ruled is the change of states of the jar has been determined certainly and can be known since the beginning. The jar can not change its rule of change.

On the other hand, an unruled dynamic identity, or a free identity can not just change but also to determine the direction of change. It is true that after some time of change, what has happened can be matched with at least one ruled dynamic identity. However before that happens, we can not determine or know certainly what kind of change will happen next.

As the one making the rule is the identity itself, and that is why this identity is declared free. From all identities, this is the identity with the greatest dynamicity even between dynamic identities as even the rules of change can be changed. In the analogy of the fruit jar, it can be imagined a jar which can choose itself the fruit that shall be inside. Whatever its reasoning, we know not, but that is its choice.

An example of a free identity most real to us is the feeling human being. This is one of the reasons why our behavior as humans is hard to describe certainly, oftenly there are only tendencies on the human behavior. Different from the physical laws which are highly absolute and can not be changed. Although freedom still has its limits and sometimes still follows existing rules, but it is certainly more flexible and dynamic.

And so we know the distinction between dynamic identities. Ruled identities mean its direction of change has been determined and can not be changed, while free identities can have their direction of change changed so that it is not determined from the beginning, what exists is simply possibilities. These two identities are more relevant to explain foundational things, while there will be a more relevant concept to things we know in daily life.

  

Part 5-Single Dynamic Identity and Multiple Dynamic Identity

So far we have understood only of single dynamic identities, that is dynamic identities which change by itself that is without being affected by another identity. However there are more varied forms that is the multiple dynamic identity, or relational identity or universal identity. The difference is multiple dynamic identity either changes or is changed by other identities within a single universal identity which supports both.

The mechanics and relation with static identities is more or less the same and what happens in a multiple dynamic identity will not destroy absolutely, only within that identity. This identity can be described as an identity in of itself or as a platform for the interaction between identities, but the two are the same. This identity is defined as the relation of change between multiple different dynamic identities.

Before we are introduced to two terms, that is relational identity and universal identity. Though both refers to the same group of identity, they have different levels and focus. Relational identity refers to the finite relations between few dynamic identities. Universal identity refers to the group of various types of dynamic identity interacting with each other and having a defined relationship, or it could be undefined.

There are various interactions between dynamic identities within a relational or universal identity but to break them down would be exhaustive. One example of a universal identity that we know is the universe that we now live in. In this identity, creation and change is allowed, but in truth what happens is the entering of identities from outside the universe into the universe, and then exiting it back into the absolute reality.

In this world there is already a study specializing in the study of the most foundational identities of this universal identity, that is physics. As all physical laws that are are relational identities which define the interaction of change between various other dynamic identities. For that reason we shall not cover too much the internal mechanics of universal identities, as many scientists have defined.

But is there a universal and relational identity that is very rooted within absolute reality that precedes all other multiple identities? There is, this group of identity is known as mathematics. In its time, it too will be discussed as a part of philosophy, but not in this part. As there are still things more foundational than mathematics, which we still must discover.

In short, a single dynamic identity is an identity which changes by itself. While a multiple dynamic identity is an identity changed or which changes other identities. As a closing, imagine two fruit jars. The two fruit jars are within one relational identity, and there are 5 and only 5 fruits. The first jar can take fruits from the second jar, and so on. So the insides of the fruit jars will continue to change according to whatever rule they have. Even the statement 1+1=2 is a relational identity, which shall be explained in the coming times.

  

Theory of Identity

All things within absolute reality is an identity, rather an existent identity or the identity of nothingness. Objectively it is every property and description that makes an object different from other objects. According to superposition, identity is the specific limitation towards an amount of properties within the superposition which forms an object. According to the law of eternal existence, no identity can be created or destroyed.

However, not all identities are static, there are dynamic identities which because of the existence of static identities does not violate the law of eternal existence. Dynamic identity means an identity which can change states or change some of its properties. Static identities can not change at all. There are ruled dynamic identities and unruled dynamic identities, ruled meaning the change is ruled and has been determined. Unruled means the dynamic identity means it is free or it can change its own rule of change as such it is never certain.

And there are single dynamic identity and multiple dynamic identity, single meaning an identity which changes by itself and does not involve other identities. Multiple dynamic identity is a group of dynamic identities which affects each other, has a relationship, and changes each other. Multiple identity is divided into relational identity which explains its relations and universal identity which explains the aggregate of relational identity within a large amount, for example the universe. Therefore that is the theory of the fundamentals of identity, that is the most basic elements of in reality.

  

Consciousness

Foreword

Reality by essence is made up of various different identities which all possess their own properties. Though all identities are existentially equal, that is eternal existentially uncreated and undestroyed, there are identities higher than other identities. For example the law of eternal existence and the law of nothingness which becomes the highest identity in reality. It means each absolute identity still has that similarity of identity.

Thus it is not wrong for us to state that philosophy is the effort of seeking the highest identities within reality. There are already two general identities which we know of reality, that is the identity of existence and the identity of identity itself. However there is one identity which is on one side higher than those two identities, as this is what becomes the essence of our self. This identity is the identity of consciousness.

Consciousness is one part of human life which becomes the root of all their experiences but it is the one most often misunderstood. Not only misunderstood, many do not realize the existence of this consciousness and state it is simply the result of brain complexity, and so consciousness is not too involved in the discussion of reality. As such it is better that we delve deeper into what is consciousness, as this becomes the first identity that we can know.

Part 1-Definition of Consciousness

What is consciousness? This question has often been answered, and it is not rare as well for people to be not so correct on it. Some say consciousness is spirit, consciousness is brain complexity, consciousness is the only identity that exists, and others. A reason consciousness is difficult to define certainly is the fact that this consciousness can not be observed from the third person view, it is always the first person. After all, the essence of consciousness is the first person view, and not second or third.

An understanding of consciousness can begin with the act of being aware, which can be related with the act of knowing, feeling, understanding, and so on. If we see all actions related with awareness, it is clear that all this are not things which can be simplified further. As awareness is already the most simple act and concept. This awareness has actually been practiced in the first chapter to investigate the absolute existence of reality, and is even established as the primary source of knowledge.

The easiest definition from awareness or consciousness is ourselves, specifically our daily experiences. What we say as experience, be it breathing in fresh air in the morning, tasting the delicacy of homemade breakfast, or the angered feeling in a traffic jam, all of those are the essence of consciousness. Of course this experience can be specified further, as sometimes experience is more understood to be empirical experience.

The thing which becomes the base of experience is feeling, also known as qualia. This concept of feeling refers to how we experience a certain thing subjectively. Say we see the color red, we know how it looks to us. Others will also point to the color we see as red. The problem is, is our red and the red of others the same? Perhaps our red is green for others, and their green is red for us. But we still say the same word for two subjectively different colors.

So the true essence of consciousness is the feeling or qualia which is subjective and is only owned by the individual, unshared between one individual and another. This feeling covers all subjective human experience or perhaps non human creatures as well. Through feeling an understanding of the world is made possible, and also various basic concepts of reality such as time. And besides existence and identity, it is difficult to describe something more fundamental for our person than feeling.

As such it can be concluded that consciousness in real is the capability of feeling and also the conscious being, which has that capability. Feeling means the obtained subjective experience and how we feel that experience. Say, how a color looks to us, how a song sounds to us, how happiness and suffering feels, pleasure and pain, and so on. That is consciousness simply put.

Part 2-Consciousness and Computation

There is a view that consciousness happens due to complex computation, in the case of humans that is brain complexity. This equates consciousness which is in truth feeling with computation, and that consciousness is simply a highest form of computation. This is not true, as we know that feeling and computation is incredibly different, and computation does not always mean feeling. Feeling is only known by who which holds it, and it is not simply held by intelligence.

This mistake is commonly done by empirio-materialists and this false interpretation of consciousness is what inhibits rationalist philosophy itself. To understand precisely why this interpretation is false, it is good that we understand their perspective as well. According to this perspective, a highly complex computational process will eventually enable a computer to become aware of its existence. The problem is this is not the correct understanding of consciousness.

When a computer is aware, it is actually conducting a logical deduction that may indeed require a certain degree of complexity. However this is not the same with the computer actually feeling that it has an existence. Thus it is a fatal misunderstanding that consciousness and logic is the same, when it is not. The two may seem similar as we humans which can feel are used to logic, but the two are not one.

This problem has been illustrated with a certain thought experiment named the Turing Test. This experiment was proposed by Alan Turing, one of the fathers of computer science which proposed a test to determined if an entity is human or computer, in other words AI. This test is quite simple, that is to communicate through some chat software with a human and with a computer. From that the tester must determine which is human and which is computer.

The hypothesis is there will be a time when human made AI has become so advanced that it is indistinguishable from humans. And it is not weird to think that humans can create “virtual humans”, that is an AI which can show emotion and feeling. It can cry, smile, and look like a normal human, but we know that it is a computer and not a true human. The question, does the computer feel as well like us humans, or is it just an illusion?

And so when it begins to be debated whether computers can feel or not, it is time to question our fellow humans as well, do other people feel or perhaps they too are mere flesh computers which seems capable of feeling? From this thought experiment it is clear that feeling and computation can not be equated, as too with consciousness. Computation is an objective process, but consciousness is the most subjective self. Then what is computation and what is consciousness?

Computation simply put is the capability or the process of arranging and processing information from what is into something new, and also the rules which dictate the mechanics of arrangement and processing of information and what response a computer has to existing information. Emotion which seems incomputable, as long as a cause and effect flow exists we can actually program it. Say the program of a little child, if ice cream is not bought then they will cry, if ice cream is bought then they will be happy, and so on.

Consciousness is feeling, that is our personal perspective towards reality subjectively. How an object looks for us, how sorrow is for us, the taste of food for our tongue, that is all elements of consciousness. All things related with perception and subjective experience, that is consciousness. With that explanation, it should be clear that feeling and mind are two different things that we can not mix. Mind may be complex, but feeling is the most simple.

Part 3-Consciousness as the Sole True Self

If we ask of who our true selves are, many will answer “human”, this is not wrong biologically. However there is another side to this question, say if we analyze based on the theory of identity, we can easily declare ourselves as an existent identity which is also free or hyper dynamic. This is not wrong either, but there is one element that we have forgotten which is above the concept of humanity, existence, or dynamic identities and its derivatives, that is the element of consciousness.

Consciousness that is feeling truly becomes the sole true self for all of us which can feel and be aware of that feeling. This is what is called the first or highest existence for us, conscious beings. Without this consciousness, we shall never know that we are humans, that we have freedom and so on. With the simple reason that the essence of “knowing” is feeling that is consciousness.

An important implication of this is that consciousness is the only identity which we can truly own and claim as “us” or “me”. As all other identities, be it human, or the rest such as race, gener, belief, culture, and others are very temporary. But in every change of the self, there is always one identity which is always attached, that is the identity of our consciousness. Yes there are other identities that remain, but the first is still consciousness.

Some may say that the identity of existence is more prime than consciousness, but this not correct completely. Ontologically it is true, it is just that ontology itself is obtained through consciousness. It is better to say that consciousness is equal to existence, this is important as some have the view that consciousness is not eternal. From identity this is already false, nothing can be created nor destroyed, only changed and even that follows non-interventional rules.

Phenomenologically we also know that consciousness is eternal. As has been said, it is the only identity which is truly our self. Consciousness also precedes all other things, without consciousness we can not know anything at all. So, the absence of consciousness for us is the same with absolute nothingness, having no property but the property of non-property and non-description. This means the absence of consciousness also has no temporal property, and so there could be no such thing as eternal oblivion.

This is clear when we are fast asleep without a dream, 7 hours would feel like several minutes only. Consciousness can not end, only change perspective and form. As such biological death is not the end of consciousness, and birth is certainly not the beginning, as consciousness has no beginning and end. It seems that it has a beginning but that is only because we lose memory of the past, our memories are wiped and when we die it shall be repeated.

And so it can be concluded that consciousness is the primary and highest identity which becomes our true self and our only self. Even if there are other identities such as existence and freedom which defines us, what begins it is still consciousness. As such consciousness must be eternal, without beginning nor ending, only seeming to in the biological life. This is proven either through eternal existence or the experiences of consciousness itself.

Part 4-Objective Elements of Consciousness

We have discussed consciousness subjectively, that is as a feeling and experience only owned by us. But it is good that we discuss it objectively as well. Consciousness objectively means the explanation of consciousness according to the properties of consciousness itself. Feeling is a subjective understanding as it is an observation of consciousness according to ourselves and explained according to ourselves.

Objectively, consciousness can be divided into 3 different elements in each condition, that is the object of awareness, the information of awareness, and the experience or feeling of awareness. The object is the real object that we are aware of, regardless of how we perceive it. The information of awareness is an arrangement of abstract objects or entities which represent that real object. The information of consciousness can be said as an idea, thought, and so on.

Meanwhile the experience of consciousness or the feeling of consciousness is the qualia itself, the essence of consciousness. The existence of this element is also what distinguishes consciousness from computation or robots. Computers only have two elements, the information and the real object, but it is unclear whether it has feeling or not. Despite that we can not state that computers have no feeling, only that it is unclear whether it has feeling or not. As we are not experiencing being that computer.

From that it is clear that all consciousness is a computer or sensor, but not all computers or sensors are certain to have consciousness. In addition, the real consciousness is flexible. This flexibility happens between the 3 elements, the consciousness itself can be the object of awareness, or the information or even the feeling itself. The application of this concept has happened through all of this discussion on consciousness, as we turn the feeling of consciousness into an object of awareness. Or in other words, we are feeling feeling itself.

This dissection of consciousness into 3 elements aid us in differentiating between the property of a real object objectively, and our perception towards those properties. The concept of objectivity and subjectivity is also based upon these elements, objective refers to the object, and subjective to the feeling. Meanwhile information and data is the meeting between feeling and object.

Part 5-Idealist Awareness and Realist Awareness

Previously we divide consciousness into 3 elements in one state of awareness, but there are also two categories of awareness according to the property of its object and the depth of awareness. These two categories as well which are debated in philosophy, that is “rationalist” awareness and “materialist” awareness. In actuality that is not the right division, rather between the idealist and the realist. Idealist here refers to ideas, thoughts, and mentality. Realist means what is real at that very moment, not just an imagination, but both are equally real simply in different form.

Idealist awareness is the awareness of objects in idealist form. Meaning its form is simply an idea, in other words we are aware of their properties but do not truly experience it. Not truly experience as the form of the object being made aware of is a set of most basic identities which can be made aware of, commonly with mathematical properties. Perhaps we can imagine the “feeling” of that object, but it is not a true feeling.

Idealist awareness, for example when we imagine a fire but there is no fire near us, or any form of imagination and thought which does not reflect the current experience. Idea is unattached to experience or temporal reality, and we can access it only by rearrangement or remembering it. Memory too is an idealist awareness as we are aware of things which no longer happens, and indeed memory is one of the essence of ideas.

The opposite of idea is reality, or precisely temporal reality. Temporal as this reality is a reality bound by time, which happens at this very moment, not what was or what will. Realist awareness is our awareness at this very moment, what happens now which we are aware of. As a result idealist awareness can be a realist awareness as well, but what is real is the idealist awareness or the ideas we are thinking of and not the contents of the idea.

The two are not exactly equal, and in truth the world of thought is higher than the world of reality. It is true that the building blocks of imagination comes from reality, but with thoughts we can reach various things which is impossible to reach in reality. However this happens as we are not truly free and united with reality. In a united state, mind and reality is just the same, whatever we think of can be manifested at that point as well.

The disparity between mind and reality means we can still imagine a reality which does not exist in reality, but it would not be as easy to realize it. At least that is the subjective explanation, objectively it can be said that idealist awareness is the awareness of the absolute existence of an object, while realist awareness is our feeling towards that existence. Idea means knowing that fire is hot, but not feeling it. Realist means knowing the fire is hot as we feel the heat of the fire.

Part 6-Conscious Beings and States of Awareness

Before it is said, that feeling is the essence of consciousness, but this is not the same with saying that possessing consciousness is the same with saying that we are feeling. It is true that our true self is feeling, but the feeling here is the capability to feel, and not the individual, separate, and fragmented feeling. For that reason it is good that we understand the significant distinction between conscious beings and states of awareness.

A conscious being is a being or subject which can feel, in this case happens the 3 elements of consciousness, they interact with real objects, possess information on the real object, and also the feeling towards the real object. The subjective and objective understanding of conscious beings are almost the same, with a slight difference. Subjectively, conscious being is the conception of who our self is other than that consciousness. For example as a human, as a female or male, as an Indonesian or an American, and so on.

Objectively, conscious being can be said as a perspective of consciousness which remains constant for a certain period of time, or intrinsic properties of a subject which affects and limits each state of awareness experienced by that being. In other words, a conscious being is the limit or the absence of a limit towards that certain consciousness. From there we gain a new concept that is the scope or limits of consciousness, which becomes the difference between one identity of consciousness and another identity.

Limits of consciousness means each conscious being has a limit towards their awareness or will always be aware of something about themselves. In truth this can be viewed as a limit which limits the awareness of a being or the perspective which determines the form of  feeling for a being. For example, for humans such as the many of us, each of us are different beings of consciousness.

Each human will reside within that single perspective and their consciousness is limited to their perspective. Perspective that is point of view means how we are aware of an object, from what side, according to what perspective, and so on. That is what is meant by conscious being. Of course this will be a little different if there is say a problem with memories, and there will be a difference between the subjective and objective meaning of being.

A conscious being in a longer period of time will be more determined not by their perspective, but the whole of their consciousness or experience. Say a being which continuously changes perspective, but always remembers that previous perspective can form a cohesive and coherent self conception. Unlike those which does not change their perspective but their memories are cut completely, it will feel like a wholly new being.

So completely, a conscious being can be explained as three things, that is the limitation of its awareness, the perspective of its awareness, and the whole of the being’s experiences as far as they are aware of it. And so what is a state of awareness? If being refers to the limit and whole, states of awareness are each different state of awareness towards reality. In other words, our feeling towards each object of reality from each possible perspective.

As such theoretically there is a one-to-one correspondence between states of reality and awareness. In the case there are two primary identities, that is the identity of reality, that is the objects of reality as they are, and the identity of the states of awareness that is every different feeling and experience towards each of those objects of reality, either in aggregate or individually. Aggregate for example the whole experience of a fire, which involves sight, emotion, smell, hearing, and so on. Individual for example the specific experience towards the heat of fire, or the choking of smoke.

A conscious being is different from its state, as they possess that state of awareness. Although because there is the perspective of consciousness it can be said that a conscious being is a state of awareness which remains constant and affects all other states. As perspective of consciousness in essence is a state of awareness, only that it precedes other states.

With that we can compare between conscious beings and states of awareness with static identities and dynamic identities. States of awareness are what builds and shapes the conscious being, it is continuous but static and unchanging. A conscious being is an aggregate of various states of awareness which is continuous and changing, and has feeling of their true self. Both still obeys the other laws of identity, that is infinite and indestructible. Conscious beings too are like that, it is infinite whether they are static or dynamic.

Summary

That is the brief explanation on what is consciousness in general but fundamental. That consciousness is in essence feeling which is differentiated from computation, but still has the elements of computation such as the 3 elements of objective consciousness. Consciousness is also the sole true self, that is the identity which enables us to feel and know fundamentally, and the only identity which is truly eternal and foundational.

In consciousness there is awareness towards the current reality and awareness towards reality which does not exist in the present moment. To be precise, there is idealist awareness where we are only aware of the existence of an object without feeling it and there is realist awarenes where we feel the existence as well. Lastly there is the distinction between conscious beings and states of awareness. Conscious being is the limit, perspective, and whole of states of awareness that they experience and are aware of. While the states of awareness are each states of awareness or feeling towards each object or reality, which may refer to just one object or the whole within a single point of time.

It is true that what is explained in this chapter has not describe consciousness fully, or its relation with daily life. However this chapter indeed has the purpose of laying down the foundations of our new understanding towards consciousness, and not the integration of philosophy with present experience. And that is my knowledge on consciousness which I share as needed presently

Freedom

Foreword

We have known the most foundational laws which applies in reality, and these laws apply for each identity of reality. That there is an eternal existence, there are static and dynamic identities, and that there is consciousness. Consciousness becomes one of the first identities which is not guaranteed to exist within all identities, but is still binding as the definition of existence for us is to be conscious. Without it, there is truly no existence, thought it does not mean that there is no existence which is not filled by consciousness. For that we shall examine a more exclusive identity that is freedom.

Part 1-Definition of Freedom

In the chapter of identity we have know of dynamic identities, that is the identities which can change states. Indeed change will certainly change absolute identity, but there is still a certain identity which remains the same for that object and does not change. Change is certainly part of freedom, but it alone is not enough to produce a free thing. As we know that there are ruled dynamic identities, which means the change is determined.

Freedom is the capability to change without being bound by any rules, or the capability to change the rule of change according to the will and decision of that free identity. Before we know this identity as the hyper dynamic identity. If we understand freedom probabilistically, we can not predict with certainty the direction of change of a free identity. Direction of change means what state shall be taken in the end of the change and what states will happen during the change.

Unless we are that identity ourselves, then we know what we choose and what we will do. What is certain is a free identity, even if only once, is free forever. Freedom works like dynamicity, once dynamic it will remain dynamic, once free it will remain free. For that reason we only need to find one free change of an identity to determine that the identity is free.

This is very easy to do if we wish to determine the freedom of ourselves. As we often choose the direction of change, certainly there is at least one direction of change which we did freely, or to be more accurate almost all are done freely. So certainly from ourselves we are free beings, though not always free, as long as the potentiality of freedom exists, freedom itself exists.

Meanwhile, determining objective freedom is not as easy as subjective freedom. But this can be resolved by returning to the basic definition of freedom, that is the capability to determine the direction of change, that is the one determining it is the identity doing the change. For that we only need to analyze with certainty, if an identity truly changes according to itself or because of another identity.

A thing that may fool is if an identity is not eternally free but has a beginning or perhaps an end to freedom. That is not a problem, may be there is a period where that identity is not free, but as long as it was once free, there is freedom. Since freedom is very broad, there is also the freedom to be unfree, but to begin a new freedom it must be started by an identity which is already free.

For that the definition of freedom or a free identity remains the same, that is the capability to change or determine the direction of change, or an identity which is capable of determining its own direction of change. Subjectively we can judge for ourselves, but objectively this means the change done by that identity is truly from that identity and there is a potentiality to change the rule of change.

Part 2-Interactions of Freedom

In the chapter of identity we also know of relational or universal identities, which is defined as the identity which contains interactions between various dynamic identities. We will not discuss how one identity interacts with another, but a higher freedom than personal freedom. Freedom is at first defined as simply the determination of the direction of change for oneself, but what of freedom towards other identities?

For that it is no longer merely freedom rather it has become power, that is the capability to determine the direction of change for others and for oneself. This freedom means an identity is capable of changing reality itself for a certain purpose. Of course a change of external reality also changes internal reality that is with the identity itself. As as long an identity can detect reality, that reality already has influence on the identity.

Thus freedom towards external reality is simply a purification of personal freedom, as in the end what changes the most is that individual identity. Change in reality will determine micro changes in that certain identity. Of course this freedom may not be concentrated on only one identity but spread among many such that there are limits towards the freedom of each identity. In that condition we are free to change other identities but they are also able and free to change our identities, and so there is a complex interaction of freedom.

But then emerges an important question, is there a clear limit to this absolute freedom? We know that a free identity can change oneself and of course their external reality as well. However is there a limit to that external reality? Yes there is, there are things so rooted that it can not be touched by even the greatest of gods or goddesses, or a being which can rule all universes, and this becomes the greatest limit of freedom.

Part 3-Limit of Freedom

One law which restrains the freedom of each free identity is the law of eternal existence and the law of static identities, Between static, dynamic, and free identities are a metaphysical wall or boundary which can not be violated. This boundary is eternal existence, as the existence of a static identity is eternal we can never fully bring it into our dynamic universe. In fact it is impossible for free identities to affect static identities or ruled dynamic identities.

This is caused by the one essence from each of those two groups of identities, that the two can not be changed its direction of change, either it doesn’t change at all or its direction of change has been determined. We can replicate part of that pure identity into the universe, but it is never the same. For that reason there are some things which we can not change, and their fates has been determined by reality itself. No there is an infinite amount of statics like that, and freedom will never touch them.

Metaphysically, this means each free identity is free only for themselves and their fellows. Even that is if they are free purely and there are no other rules which has been made for them. And static identities will never meet free identities, what we see are merely compilations or an impure form. Ruled dynamic identities will also never become free, as once free it is always free. Even if we encounter it, it is simply a shadow, and not the real one.

A rebuttal may be produced, by stating of multiple universal identities which mutually interact. Here’s the matter, if one can interact with another, from the beginning they are already within a wide universal identity. Concepts such as the multiverse does not mean we can interact with a truly different identity in the sense that it is in a lower state of freedom, but since the beginning we are part of that multiverse. But there is a universal identity like us which is separated and not within one multiverse, which can only interact with itself and none other. Like them, we will never encounter them or change them, other than as a mere idea.

Part 4-Consciousness and Freedom

Is a conscious being guaranteed to be free? It seems not, but we know not as so far when we are conscious we are aware of a freedom so fundamental. We do not know at all if there is an identity which is aware that their life has been determined completely by a set of rules or if each conscious identity must be free as well. And perhaps this is one question which we can never answer unless we feel it as well.

The problem is we will never feel it, except for a little of it. As what I have said, once free it is still free and will always be free. Except if our consciousness is cut and we begin anew as some dynamic identity or even static we will never know. Besides, a conscious but unfree identity (in the sense that it is wholly not free and its direction of change has been determined certainly) means each thought and what it can be aware of has been determined. They have feeling, but it is artificial.

Something like that is already difficult to imagine, we are used to a life where at least our mind is controlled with our own feeling. How about a human in another universe which is conscious, but their life, their every behavior and thought has been determined to a gruesome death? And nothing can be done to change that. Of course they will not be aware of their lack of freedom, or perhaps they are aware, but it is irrelevant as all that has been determined and can not be challenged.

But if say a consciousness is already not free, and they are not aware of that lack of freedom, perhaps it can be said that they are not conscious fully. Only that as long as they can feel some reality, they are still conscious. In reality, there are humans on this earth which is also “not free” and is not aware of it, but they actually can be aware of it, we can make them free. As long as potentiality exists, freedom will too, but what of a world which has absolutely no potential to be free? A world which has been determined and planned its fate and nothing escapes from control?

Of course a world like that can still be accepted as we too know not if we are truly free or we have been determined. But because of the fact that we can still feel some freedom, perhaps more or less we are free beings. A world that has been determined can actually run as usual and perhaps feel like usual as well. What is more confusing is a truly static consciousness, is that possible?

Perhaps that refers more to static states of awareness and not the conscious being itself. As static means feeling one state of awareness forever without beginning and end, I feel that it can be compared to a static identity. How it feels certainly we know not, more so than not knowing a conscious ruled dynamic identity. However is it truly important? As according to the limits of freedom, we will never be able to influence them or encounter them, and so it is not that important to discuss them.

Part 5-Freedom of Identity

Previously we define identity as a capability to determine the direction of change, but we translate it as the capability to change the direction of change. This is not wrong, simply incomplete. There is a deeper freedom in relation to identity and simply the capability of change. We say that a static identity is not free, but free here means free to change, while statics are free in another meaning.

The other definition of freedom is according to the perspective of identity, that is the capability of an identity to determine change (or lack thereof) independently and undetermined by another identity. We say in the beginning that static identities are not free as they can not change themselves. The problem is they are not unchanging by the act of other identities, rather by their own.

Not only it made itself unchanging, but static identities are by essence static, unchanging. Or with ruled dynamic identities which has their direction of change determined, the reason that identity has been determined is not by another or by some god, but because that is the essence and definition of that identity. The direction of change of these two identities may have been determined and can not be changed, but the question now is not can it change or not, but who is determining it.

A more complete freedom is not just the capacity to change the direction of change, but the capacity to act according to the true self. We free beings too can determine our fates, and when we truly persevere and have no weakness in our heart, is it not that we are unable to change our direction of change as well? But it happens by our own desires and essence, not by the act of others.

The same thing can be said towards identities which can not change either absolutely or its direction of change. They are like that not by another identity but their own. What determines the law is the law itself, as such statics and ruled dynamics are still free, only they are free for a different perspective. We can not state them as not free, as indeed they are not freedom, but in acting not as a free being, rather according to their nature as unfree beings, they become free.

Part 6-Universal Freedom

If we refer to the the intrinsic freedom as in the previous part, we will realize that truly each identity which can no longer interact with another identity is a free identity. In other words unfreedom only happens when an identity is controlled by another identity, which is only possible in interactions between identity. But in the highest level of universal identity, which can not interact with other identities, how can it be ruled by an other? As there is none but itself.

Even if there is unfreedom in that universal identity, as a whole what happens in the universe happens in the universe. Every change that happens within, happens by that universe as well, not an “other” universe. As the definition is that indeed the universe is the last level and can not be disturbed or disturb other universes. It truly acts according to its essence.

Absolute Freedom

In the end we have known freedom in two different perspectives, that is the capability to change the direction of change by one’s own power, or to act according to the true self. Dynamic freedom is certainly not owned by every identity, as there are statics which are not free as they can not change their direction of change. There are even identities which rule over other identities and can change the direction of change of other identities or its whole universe even.

However there is a level of identity where it is impossible to control or influence other identities. This happens by eternal existence, and is most visible in statics and its relationship with free identities which is effectively none. For that there is a more fundamental freedom, which is owned by each identity, that is to act according to the essence of its self identity. A static identity which is not affected and does not affect is free as it acts according to itself.

In truth there is already a highest freedom which we have found since the beginning, that is eternal existence. The law of existence which founds all things in reality is a very strong law and even inviolable at all. But this is not a form of unfreedom, but the highest freedom, as each being is a manifestation of this law. That all beings exist eternally, is simply the most fundamental base of each being.

Summary

Existence

With the 4 main parts of this metaphysics chapter, it could be said that we have finished in forming a set of the metaphysical science that is most fundamental and applies for all existent reality. For that it is good that we summarize all metaphysical discoveries from existence until freedom. First we prove that reality has existence through pure consciousness, which is detached from that consciousness and is also eternal in existence. This eternity is caused by the property of nothingness having no property, meaning it can not be changed into or changed from, as such the two exists separately and eternally.

As a result, from the part of existence we can formulate a law, that is the Law of Eternal Existence which states that, “Reality exists eternally, without beginning and without end.” Before the law of eternity is the Law of Subjective Existence and the Law of Nothingness. The law of subjective existence states that, “Existence is found and confirmed through pure consciousness.” The law of nothingness states that, “Nothingness is that which has no property but the property of non-property and non-description.” The first law is the discovery of the first existence and the second law shapes the eternity of existence.

Next is the expoundment of identity, defined as a set of properties which differentiates an object from another object. There are absolute identities which describe the whole of an object internally or externally (the property of an object relative to other objects such as space and time) or general identity which describes the similarity of property or identity between several absolutely different objects.

According to the law of eternal existence, each identity has an eternal existence, without beginning and without end. This means the purest reality is an infinite superposition, in the sense that all things coexist without a different time or space, in an uncountably infinite amount. This is the Law of Infinite Superposition which states, “Reality is every identity which coexists in an uncountable and infinite amount.”

With that all reality can be summarized in a single concise statement, “Reality is the coexistence of every absolute identity which has not beginning or end.”

Identity

There are two definitions towards identity, that is according to the micro perspective that is absolute identity or according to macro perspective or the comparison between identity and superpositional reality. Identity in the perspective of the superposition is the specific bounds towards a certain part of reality which makes an identity different from the reality beyond that identity. Thus officially identity is, “Identity is the object which is different in all properties with other objects as a result of a specific boundary towards a certain part within reality.”

Identity also exists derivatively or non-derivatively. Non-derivative identity is an identity which can no longer be divided into simpler identities, in other words original identity. While derivative identity is an identity defined as a collection of various original identities into a new identity different from each of its elements. We can formulate this into a Law of Derivative Identity which states, “Identity can be original or an aggregate of several distinct original identities.”

A further application of that law are static, dynamic, and free identities. Static identities are every identity which absolutely can not change and its state is eternal. This is the most fundamental original identity within reality. Dynamic identities are identities which absolutely can change by their direction of change that is the goal and process of change can not be changed. And so it can be said that dynamic identities are a derivative of various involved statics.

Meanwhile there are free identities which absolutely can change and its direction of change can be changed as well as such it is not certain or determined to follow an existent dynamic identity. As such it can be said that a free identity is the derivative identity from various dynamic identities which themselves are derivative identities of various static identities which exist.

Lastly, there is what is called a universal or relational identity, which is defined as a relationship or interaction between various different identities within one singular identity. However universal identity can also be defined as the highest level of identity where there can no longer be an interaction with another identity. Rationally, there are many levels of universal identity, be it free or unfree, which involves a finite or infinite amount of identities.

By that reason, each universal identity can not access each other, and what is certain is each singular identity can not access each other either. Therefore there are three boundaries of accessibility between identities, that is the boundary between single identities that is that which does not interact or relate with other identities, between single identities and relational identities, and between fellow universal identities. It can then be decreed the Law of Mutual Inaccessibility which states, “Identities which can not interact with other identities will not interact with its fellows and vice versa, identities which can interact with other identities will still not interact with identities which can not interact with other identities and vice versa.”

There is also the Law of Free Identity which states, “Free identities are identities which absolutely can change undetermined as a derivative of dynamic identities which absolutely can changed determined as a derivative of static identities which absolutely can not change.” And the last law of identity is the Law of Universal Identity which states, “Universal identities are the relationships and interactions between various different and dynamic or free identities.”

Consciousness

Fundamentally, consciousness can be defined as feeling, that is the subjective experience for each person. The simplest example is the feeling of heat, the feeling of sadness, or the sight of the color red, which is all subjective. This is different from computation, which becomes part of consciousness but not all computation is consciousness. Thus the definition of consciousness is, “Consciousness is the feeling towards reality owned by each person and experienced subjectively and unshared with other persons.”

Consciousness from the subjective perspective is not only the feeling but also the most eternal and basic self conception. All other self conceptions, such as a human or as an animal, as a living thing, or other things only exist in the first place through consciousness. By that reason consciousness also becomes the first and highest existence for each conscious being, and becomes the determinant of all subjective existence. Such that the absence of consciousness is equal to true oblivion and consciousness must be immortal in feeling. As a result, it is the Law of Conscious Supremacy which states that, “Consciousness for all conscious beings is the most primary self conception and also the first and eternal existence which determines all other existence subjectively.”

Consciousness as an object is a sensor and computer added with the subjective element of feeling. Therefore in each interaction of consciousness is 3 elements, that is the object of awareness, the information of that object, and also feeling towards the object. Object is the pure object, which includes the whole of its properties. Information of the object is another object representing part or the whole of the object of awareness, or that which enables awareness towards it. And feeling is as has been explained. With that there is the Law of Computational Consciousness which states that, “Consciousness is the object capable of possessing information on another object and also possessing feeling towards that object.”

Consciousness is not attached to the present moment, rather it can reach things which is not within this present moment. Consciousness in essence is feeling, but this feeling can be feeling towards actual reality, which is now or feeling towards the absolute existence of reality. Absolute feeling or idealist awareness is the same with knowledge, thought, or idea, where there is awareness towards the existence of an object but not necessarily feeling that object at the same moment. Actual feeling or realist awareness is the same as direct experience, as such there is awareness towards the existence of an object but also feeling that object at the same time. Therefore it is the Law of Idealist Awareness which states, “The most basic consciousness is the feeling towards the absolute existence of an identity without needing a more specific feeling towards that identity.”

Consciousness also consists of conscious beings and states of awareness. Conscious beings in essence is the object capable of feeling or awareness towards reality. But completely it is the limitations upon awareness of reality, the specific perspective towards each reality, and the whole of states of awareness which has been experienced by a being. While a state of awareness is the individual feeling of specific experience towards an object. Therefore there is the Law of Conscious Beings which states, “Conscious beings are every object capable of feeling reality with a certain perspective with a certain limit towards reality which is formed by the whole of that being’s experiences.”

As a free and conscious being, we can just assume that each conscious being must be free, but that is not certain. As conscious beings by definition is the object capable of feeling, static and dynamic identities are also capable of having consciousness, only that it does not change and has been determined. This means consciousness is not exclusive towards freedom and is declared with the Law of Non-Exclusivity of Consciousness which states, “Consciousness is not limited for free identities and may apply for static or dynamic identities.” That is the last law of consciousness.

Freedom

The first form of freedom is the capability to change the direction of change for an identity or another identity within a universal identity. This is the essence of the free identity, which is not owned by dynamic or static identities. The law for this freedom is the Law of Dynamic Freedom which states, “Dynamic freedom is the capability of an identity to change its own direction of change or another identity’s.”

The second freedom is the capability to determine the direction of change for an identity, and this applies for each identity which fulfills the law of mutual inaccessibility. It means that each universal identity has determined its own direction of change even if it can not change it. Therefore each static and dynamic identity is free in this category, along with each universal identity. The law for this freedom is the Law of Deterministic Freedom which states, “Deterministic freedom is the capability of each identity that fulfills the law of mutual inaccessibility to determine its own direction of change.”

There is also the restrainment and boundary of freedom absolutely by the law of inaccessibility itself. That as free as an identity is towards others, that identity is only free over itself or its universe. This is the Law of Inaccessibility of Freedom which states, “Dynamic freedom will never violate the law of mutual inaccessibility.” And that is the last law of freedom.

Laws of Metaphysics

In conclusion all basic metaphysical studies can be summarized in these laws.

1. Law of Subjective Existence

Existence is found and verified through pure consciousness.

2. Law of Nothingness

Nothingness is that which possess no properties other than the property of non-property and non-description.

3. Law of Eternal Existence

Reality exists eternally and immortally, without beginning nor end.

4. Law of Infinite Superposition

Reality is every identity which coexists in an infinite and uncountable amount.

5. Law of Absolute Reality

Reality is the coexistence of every absolute identity without beginning nor end.

6. Law of Identity

Identity is the object different in all properties from other objects as a result of a specific limitation towards a certain part of reality.

7. Law of Derivative Identity

Identity can be original or an aggregate of several different original identities.

8. Law of Free Identity

Free identities are identities which absolutely can change undetermined as a derivative of dynamic identities which absolutely can changed determined as a derivative of static identities which absolutely can not change

9. Law of Universal Identity

Universal identity is the relationship and interaction between various different and dynamic or free identities.

10. Law of Mutual Inaccessibility

Identities which can not interact with other identities will not interact with its fellows and vice versa, identities which can interact with other identities will still not interact with identities which can not interact with other identities and vice versa

11. Law of Consciousness

Consciousness is the feeling towards reality owned by each person and experienced subjectively and unshared with other persons.

12. Law of Computational Consciousness

Consciousness is the object capable of possessing information on an other object and also possessing feeling towards that object.

13. Law of Idealist Awareness

The most basic form of awareness is awareness towards the absolute existence of an identity without needing a more specific feeling towards an identity.

14. Law of Conscious Being

Conscious beings are all objects capable of feeling reality with a certain perspective with certain limitations towards reality which is formed by the whole of the being’s experience.

15. Law of Non-Exclusivity of Consciousness

Consciousness is not limited towards free identities and can apply towards static or dynamic identities.

16. Law of Dynamic Freedom

Dynamic freedom is the capability of an identity to change its own direction of change or another identity’s

17. Law of Deterministic Freedom

Deterministic freedom is the capability of each identity that fulfills the law of mutual inaccessibility to determine its own direction of change

18. Law of Inaccessibility of Freedom

Dynamic freedom will never violate the law of mutual inaccessibility

  

Our Universe

This is the last chapter in this basic metaphysical science, which will contain a bit of my thoughts on the properties of our universe according to the perspective of metaphysics. According to the laws of identity, our universe is clearly an example of a universal identity (after all my ideas of that is obtained from the understanding of our own universe), where there happens interactions between at least 10^86 particles in this universe. This universe also has dynamic and free identities. The physicists have found many laws in this universe that seems to will never be violated. However there are also many things within those laws which seems random and unpredictable.

Is our universe an inaccessible? It seems not, many scientists support the hypothesis that there are other universes which can be accessed however the way. Only that it is not certain yet and there is still a possibility that we reside in an inaccessible. Even if we are in a multiverse, it is not guaranteed that it is an absolute multiverse which can contain an infinite amount of different universes. It can be that our universal identity has some static properties which can not be changed. That is a very real possibility.

But that it is not too important nor does it affect us too much, even if we only have one universe which we can manipulate certainly there are things that can be done. Consciousness certainly exists in this universe, though its precise mechanics I know not. What may be interesting is the beginning of this universe. Is this universe created by another universe or a super entity, or have existed as a repetition or as a continuous loop, we know not.

In actuality, there is not much that can be discussed between metaphysics and our universe, as entering our universe becomes the scope of physics. As such I believe that is all that I can discuss on the metaphysics of our universe. Anything more complex than this is the problem of times to come. More complex things such as God and the universe, or problems of epistemology, logic, mathematics and so on.

Closing

And that is all basic metaphysical science which I can share to the world. 18 concise laws have been written to summarize all reality of the world, but there are much more regarding metaphysics which still needs to be written and shared. For that reason the laws in this writing is certainly will not be sufficient to describe all metaphysics of reality. But as I have said, this is the most basic metaphysics, and certainly there will be deeper parts later on. And I feel this metaphysics is sufficient for now, as a foundation of all subsequent philosophy. I hope this writing can be something that is useful for all mankind, now and until the end of this world. God bless us all, amen.