Ontology of Being

[Chasw]

I've commented several times here about how the concept of Being/Nothingness can be properly decomposed. Recently, after being challenged with the so-called problem of universals, I collected my thoughts and prepared a thorough description and explanation of my proposed ontology. The complete article is posted on my blog www.onhumanaffairs.blogspot.com, here is the abstract:

Abstract: Everything that exists in the universe at this instant, all matter, energy, fields, life forms, everything we perceive, imagine or do, can be rationally assigned to one of four mutually exclusive, metaphysical classes of extant entities: These four classes are: a) the physical universe, b) life forms, c) mental activity in the minds of higher order animals and d) beings and actions in an unseen spirit realm. Each has its own characteristics and each can only be described and explained with its own particular form of analysis and language framework, viz. physics, biology, psychology and metaphysics or religion, respectively. - CW

[Steve3007]

Abstract: Everything that exists in the universe at this instant, all matter, energy, fields, life forms, everything we perceive, imagine or do, can be rationally assigned to one of four mutually exclusive, metaphysical classes of extant entities: These four classes are: a) the physical universe, b) life forms, c) mental activity in the minds of higher order animals and d) beings and actions in an unseen spirit realm. Each has its own characteristics and each can only be described and explained with its own particular form of analysis and language framework, viz. physics, biology, psychology and metaphysics or religion, respectively. - CW

Hi Chasw. If we were to adopt a principle of parsimony (not multiplying the number of classes of entities beyond what is necessary to describe and predict what we observe to be the case about the world) do you think it would be possible to reduce your four classes at all?

For example, (a) and (b). Would you say that anything about life forms (b) is physical (a)?

It's true that there are distinct disciplines describing and predicting the behaviour of distinct classes of things. So, for example, you can't use the laws of physics to do sociology or to predict the outcome of a horse race. (I know a joke about that one. If you want to hear it I'll tell it to you). But do we have to conclude from this that each discipline is dealing with an entirely different class of entity? Could it be that physicists can't predict the outcome of horse races for essentially the same reason why they can't predict the outcome of a coin toss? Not because coins and horses are not made of physical matter but because the arrangement an inter-relationships of matter in complex systems is just extremely difficult to predict unless we know the position and velocity of every particle in the system?

[Steve3007]

(The link to your blog doesn't seem to work.)

[Chasw]

Thanks, Steve. Sorry bout that, I can't edit the post, but the correct url is shown in its footer. An ontology is merely an mental exercise to divide up a blob of ideas into sensible categories, ones that help us see logically significant differences between the several categories. As you would expect, from my POV these four categories seem to fulfill that objective. I can't find a way to condense this model into fewer categories, without ignoring the fundamental differences between them. Like all philosophy, truth as best we can make it out, must prevail. The only other category I can comprehend is that of Being itself, the parent category. An interesting offshoot, in my mind is the question of Nothingness, what is it? Does it exists? Did it ever exist? I don't believe it exists, but it might have once upon a time. Such questions must be settled before one can imagine an ontology of Being. - CW

[Steve3007]

An ontology is merely an mental exercise to divide up a blob of ideas into sensible categories, ones that help us see logically significant differences between the several categories.

Yes, I suppose so. If we're using the word to refer to an exercise, I'd say an ontology is an exercise in deciding what classes of entities we consider to be real existents, since the branch of metaphysics called ontology is all about things that exist (as distinct from epistemology which is about what we can know [about the things that exist among other things]).

As you would expect, from my POV these four categories seem to fulfill that objective. I can't find a way to condense this model into fewer categories, without ignoring the fundamental differences between them.

OK. Well, for the reasons I started exploring in my previous post I don't see there as being fundamental differences between them. Although that word "fundamental" tends to be open to interpretation.

An interesting offshoot, in my mind is the question of Nothingness, what is it? Does it exists? Did it ever exist? I don't believe it exists, but it might have once upon a time.

I've never quite understand this thing that people do of putting -ness on the end of nothing to make it, kind of, more nothingy. But my view is that it would be a contradiction in terms to propose that nothing or nothingness (or nothingnessness ) exists. To my mind it's a word that, by definition, refers to absence. I think we often get confused about that simply because of the structure of language. Because "nothing[ness]" is a pronoun and can therefore be used in sentences in a similar way to other pronouns and nouns, and because lots of other pronouns and nouns refer to existents, I think there's the odd feeling that it somehow makes sense to use "nothing[ness]" to refer to some kind of existent too. But I don't think it makes sense to let that feature of language dictate what we believe to be the case about the world.

[Pattern-chaser]

An interesting offshoot, in my mind is the question of Nothingness, what is it?

It's a lack of 'thingness', and/or a lack of 'things'.



Interestingly, in electronics we refer to 'holes' that are just places where an electron could be, but isn't. So, although 'hole' refers to nothing, it is nevertheless a useful concept (to electronics engineers, at least).

[Steve3007]

It's a lack of 'thingness', and/or a lack of 'things'.

I agree! Which makes it strange, to me at least, when people ponder questions that amount to "What kind of thing is nothing?". As I said above, I reckon it's a feature of the way our language allows itself to be misused. Specifically the way that a word like "nothing" (with any number of -ness suffixes) looks grammatically like it's referring to a thing, because it's a pronoun.

[Belindi]

There is no such event or thing as nothingness. If one tries to imagine nothingness one imagines an analogy. Being is.

We reify (thingify)words as if they mean something that exists like Steve explains, above.

[PoeticUniverse]

d) beings and actions in an unseen spirit realm.

And by that template e)… and even higher realm of unseen spirits to them, and so forth, to explain how they came to be.

And realms among us or between us and those higher realms, like elfins and genii:

[Chasw]

Modern physics includes a branch called cosmology, which addresses all that happened in real time from the onset of the Big Bang singularity until here and now. Some of those cosmologists claim the only way the universe could have reached its current size in only 13.8 billion years was if the process included a period of expansion so rapid that space itself must have been created simultaneously with the matter. In other words, the process involved instantly creating a realm where matter and energy was placed at a huge distance and velocity in the blink of an eye, with no regard for the usual speed-of-light limit on causality. That seems to imply creating Being where before nothing existed, not even a Higgs field. I have no problem imagining a state of Nothingness, the opposite of Being, which perhaps existed (if we allow that word) before the current universe came into being, or was created if you prefer. Part of one's philosophy of time. - CW

[chewybrian]

Abstract: Everything that exists in the universe at this instant, all matter, energy, fields, life forms, everything we perceive, imagine or do, can be rationally assigned to one of four mutually exclusive, metaphysical classes of extant entities: These four classes are: a) the physical universe, b) life forms, c) mental activity in the minds of higher order animals and d) beings and actions in an unseen spirit realm. Each has its own characteristics and each can only be described and explained with its own particular form of analysis and language framework, viz. physics, biology, psychology and metaphysics or religion, respectively. - CW

Hi Chasw. If we were to adopt a principle of parsimony (not multiplying the number of classes of entities beyond what is necessary to describe and predict what we observe to be the case about the world) do you think it would be possible to reduce your four classes at all?

For example, (a) and (b). Would you say that anything about life forms (b) is physical (a)?

It's true that there are distinct disciplines describing and predicting the behaviour of distinct classes of things. So, for example, you can't use the laws of physics to do sociology or to predict the outcome of a horse race. (I know a joke about that one. If you want to hear it I'll tell it to you). But do we have to conclude from this that each discipline is dealing with an entirely different class of entity? Could it be that physicists can't predict the outcome of horse races for essentially the same reason why they can't predict the outcome of a coin toss? Not because coins and horses are not made of physical matter but because the arrangement an inter-relationships of matter in complex systems is just extremely difficult to predict unless we know the position and velocity of every particle in the system?

A, B and C seem to stack to me. It's like having a boat and adding a mast and a sail to make a sailboat. D is...well, who knows, but you could reasonably just drop D if you want to narrow the choices.

I do want to hear the horse racing joke. Physicists and statisticians can go a long way toward establishing probabilities in horse races. There are a few real world reasons that it is very hard to predict outcomes, though. The track handicapper has a primary duty to write race conditions such that the fields are as evenly matched as possible. It's complicated, but although they seldom get very evenly matched fields, they do have a lot of races with many possible outcomes as a result of his efforts to be creative in writing the races.

Most importantly, I think, is that neither we railbirds nor the track handicapper can see the intentions of the trainers and jockeys and owners. Sometimes they don't have today's race as the main goal, and surprisingly will not try as hard as the two dollar bettor would want or expect. They sometimes have sinister motives to manufacture a given outcome. But, more often, they simply have a strategy for today's race which may or may not be prudent.

For example, someone may decide to go for the lead with a 50:1 shot because it seems like the only chance to win. As a result, a heavy favorite that *has* to be on the lead will use much too much energy early, and finish off the board along with the 50:1 shot. Sometimes the trainers and jockeys will read the Form and realize that there are all sorts of need the lead frontrunners entered in today's race, and take their horse back early. If too many of them make this wise guy move, that 50:1 shot might win and blow up the tote board.

Anyway, long story short, I was attracted to the races because I love the math. I discovered that the human element is very important and you can make more money playing off that element than the speed ratings and such that are visible to everyone all the time.

[PoeticUniverse]

Ontology of Being

THE BASIS OF BEING

As for forces, which are just a prelude here,
We note that two of them are transitional,
The Electric and the Magnetic,
Each giving rise to the other,

And that two others are oppositional,
The Weak and the Strong,
The Weak promoting changeability,
The Strong promoting stability.
Gravity is then left as the blend of all.

( Strong vs. Weak ) [Gravity] ( Electro <—> Magnetic )

So, would oppositional and transitional pairs
Work for our human being as well?

For us humans, all is of the
Movement of Appearances,
These Movements giving rise
To notions of time…

Past into Future,
Or the Then to When through the Now
Is transitional in only one direction,
While Appearances beget notions of
Matter lumps, in the place of Space…

Matter and Space, or the What and Where
Are a kind of an opposition in that
The knots of matter are separate
From the gaps of space in between;
Or in short, all seems to be the
Movement through time/distance
Of Matter in Space.

( Matter vs. Space ) [Being] ( Past —> Future )

We will see that our being is composed
From these simple notions begun,

For movement grants time—
The Then and the When
Of the Past and the Future,
Via change;

While Matter is the What,
And Space is the Where,
Via ‘clumps’.

The blend of all these would be
The spirit of life, or being.

These fields then further combine:
The What-Matter + When-Future field
Becoming the Progression
Of matter into the future,

And the What-Matter + Then-Past field
Becoming the History
Of the matter past—what has occurred.

The When-Future of Where-Space field
Makes for Wishes, hopes and dreams
In the future place of space;

The Then-Past + Where-Space field—
Begets Remembrance of memories
In the past space.

The emergent fields then further combine:

Learning becomes of Remembrance and History;

A Change of Outlook becomes
Of Remembrance and Wishes;

A Change in Structure is Progress from History;
And Vision is of Wishes and Progress.

At the next higher stage,
Being Creative is brought forth
From Learning combined with a Change in Structure;

Direction results from Learning
And a Change of Outlook;

Growth is the Vision for a Change of Outlook;

Planning is the Vision for a Change in Structure.

Finally, Creating, Direction, Growth, and Planning
Compose one’s being—The Who.

[Terrapin Station]

Thanks, Steve. Sorry bout that, I can't edit the post, but the correct url is shown in its footer. An ontology is merely an mental exercise to divide up a blob of ideas into sensible categories, ones that help us see logically significant differences between the several categories.

Wouldn't that make ontology an analysis of how you think about things--more specifically, how you formulate concepts?

If we make ontology that, what would we call philosophy focused on "what there is"?

[PoeticUniverse]

a) the physical universe,

And its Eternal Basis, such as quantum fields…

The Field's Great Wheel e’er whirls its energy,
It having to turn and return, to stay,
Rearranging, as ne’er still—eternally,
Into base temporary pattern-trees.

[Steve3007]

I do want to hear the horse racing joke.

I've told it and referenced it on here loads of times before. I'm like a cracked record.

Short version:

A physicist is asked to predict the outcome of a horse race. He thinks deeply for a moment and then mutters to himself: "Ok let's assume a spherical horse in a vacuum...".

It's a kind of a physicists' in-joke, acknowledging that just because the world is made of physical stuff that doesn't mean that physics is the only game in town. As I said in my earlier post, for the purpose of illustrating this, the horse could be replaced with any other complex physical system, such as a system that most people would acknowledge is unambiguously made of physical stuff, like a spinning coin.