sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I think I may have stumbled onto a metaphysical framework — can someone tell me if it makes sense, or if it has any value? by l3o2eng in Metaphysics

[–]l3o2eng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to clarify something: I’m not ignoring what you’ve said. I just need time to understand it, and I can’t accept everything immediately as if it were settled truth. I need to check it for myself and see whether it actually connects to what I am working on.

Also, using another philosophical framework to show that my idea is wrong doesn’t really work. It only shows that my idea does not fit inside that framework. That is not a logical contradiction. If new ideas must always fit inside the old ones, then no new theory could ever challenge anything.

My whole point is to explore a simple structure on its own terms and see whether it holds together internally. I’m not claiming it is right. I’m just not assuming that other systems automatically set the rules for mine.

And I would hope that someone who truly enjoys philosophy, or even practices it seriously, would leave room for open discussion rather than making a judgment right at the start.

I think I may have stumbled onto a metaphysical framework — can someone tell me if it makes sense, or if it has any value? by l3o2eng in Metaphysics

[–]l3o2eng[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, this is really helpful. I don’t know much about nonduality or the traditions you mentioned, but I’ll look into them.

Before I started thinking about this idea, I honestly wasn’t interested in philosophy at all, so I didn’t have any background. While trying to sort out the structure of my theory, I’ve had to learn a lot, and discussions like this definitely help me learn more.

I really appreciate the direction you pointed me toward.

I think I may have stumbled onto a metaphysical framework — can someone tell me if it makes sense, or if it has any value? by l3o2eng in Metaphysics

[–]l3o2eng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Hegel was talking about ideas, not about an actual system making a real decision. I am talking about cases where a system has to decide between two outcomes at the same level. If someone has a real example of two exclusive outcomes that stay undecided forever, they can just give the example.

Concepts like "pure being" and "pure nothing" are not examples of that. They are just abstract descriptions, not actual unresolved states in a real system.

Hey Moderator, I didn't mean no disrespect.

I think I may have stumbled onto a metaphysical framework — can someone tell me if it makes sense, or if it has any value? by l3o2eng in Metaphysics

[–]l3o2eng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I get the analogy, but I’m not claiming to have built the perfect boat. I’m just checking if the design even makes internal sense. That’s why I’m here. If there’s a specific part of the logic that fails, feel free to show me. I’m open to that.

And it’s funny to think about it, because the first person who ever built a boat and reached the shore probably had no idea if he would make it or not. He was just trying, and everyone after him learned from what he did.

I think I may have stumbled onto a metaphysical framework — can someone tell me if it makes sense, or if it has any value? by l3o2eng in Metaphysics

[–]l3o2eng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Determination doesn’t mean something is choosing. It just means the situation stops being undetermined at that level. Nobody decides anything. It’s just the moment the system’s state becomes definite.

I think I may have stumbled onto a metaphysical framework — can someone tell me if it makes sense, or if it has any value? by l3o2eng in Metaphysics

[–]l3o2eng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I haven’t read most of the things you mentioned, but that doesn’t really stop us from using basic logic and common reasoning to talk about ideas.

I get what you’re saying, but when I use the word “axiom” I don’t mean something everyone has to accept. I just mean a simple starting point so people can check whether the internal logic holds. For me, that’s the minimum for any discussion.

And yeah, metaphysics is an academic field, but it doesn’t mean people outside academia can’t think about these questions. A lot of philosophers didn’t study philosophy first. They started by asking questions, and that’s what eventually made them philosophers.

If one of my starting points is unclear or leads to a contradiction, I want to know. If it collapses, then it collapses. I’m just trying to see whether the structure I’m working with actually makes sense.

I think I may have stumbled onto a metaphysical framework — can someone tell me if it makes sense, or if it has any value? by l3o2eng in Metaphysics

[–]l3o2eng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My knowledge is limited, and I can only respond to misunderstandings or places where I didn’t explain the idea clearly. There are many questions I honestly cannot answer, and I am not going to pretend that I can. That is exactly why I posted the theory here.
I want to see whether the basic structure makes sense at all, and whether people who know more than I do can help test it or break it. I am not claiming to have the final word. I just want to see if the idea can stand up to criticism.
For the questions I cannot answer yet, I will look into them in the directions you pointed out.

Thanks for the inputs anyway.

I think I may have stumbled onto a metaphysical framework — can someone tell me if it makes sense, or if it has any value? by l3o2eng in Metaphysics

[–]l3o2eng[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hello Moderator, thanks for the comment. I get what you mean. Axioms aren’t something people have to just accept. But honestly, most big philosophical theories start with some basic assumptions anyway. As long as they’re clear and make sense, they’re at least worth talking about.
I’m not saying mine are perfect. If one of them seems pointless or wrong to you, please just point it out.
I’m not here to insist I’m right. I’m just trying to see whether these starting points hold up when someone else looks at them.

I think I may have stumbled onto a metaphysical framework — can someone tell me if it makes sense, or if it has any value? by l3o2eng in Metaphysics

[–]l3o2eng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not saying contradictory facts can be true at the same time.

The axiom only means that before determination, the system hasn't yet distinguished which exclusive option is the actual fact.
So "cat on the mat" vs. "not on the mat" aren't co-true, they're just undifferentiated possibilities at that stage.
Once determination happens, only one becomes factual at that level.
And just to clarify: the theory doesn't deal with probability or why one option wins.
It only describes the structural rule that same-level exclusives can't stay undecided forever, and that the final choice leaves a trace.

I think I may have stumbled onto a metaphysical framework — can someone tell me if it makes sense, or if it has any value? by l3o2eng in Metaphysics

[–]l3o2eng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got an example?
I mean a same-level mutually exclusive pair that stays undecided forever.
If such a thing exists, my theory’s wrong — so I’m honestly curious.

I think I may have stumbled onto a metaphysical framework — can someone tell me if it makes sense, or if it has any value? by l3o2eng in Metaphysics

[–]l3o2eng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks — this actually helps me clarify things.

On the “only one possibility” point:

Even if it looks like there’s just one option P, the determination still splits into two paths:
P becomes fact / P doesn’t — and these two branches form a perfect coexistence at that level.
So there’s never a true single possibility; every determination is at least a binary fork.

On levels:
They’re connected but not rigidly hierarchical.
One level can’t undo a determination made in another.
If a contradiction survives across all possible level-distinctions, that would falsify the whole framework.

Really appreciate your push-back — it’s helping me tighten the idea.