u/shall8w

Edit: Title better fit as Argument: what you don’t know proves Ontology

Many have been trying to define ontology by going smaller and smaller (QFT, string theory, information theory) to the point where many point out, we aren’t even talking about something physically “real” anymore. Take our current understanding of physics: electrons have mass only in relation to the Higgs field, making them inseparable from it on an ontological standpoint; there is no ontological pure electron floating out there. Same thing with the relationship between space and matter. They’re just details of a bigger whole. So what is the fundamental reality that we know isn’t just a detail of a bigger whole?

-

I’ve been thinking recently about just how important not thinking is to epistemology. And perhaps what we don’t think about— or don’t know— is the best proof we have for ontology. Maybe instead of discovering new details we can prove ontology in a different way:

• If you were to spit out a piece of gum and stick it on the bottom of my shoe— until I notice it— that gum had simply ontological backing from my perspective. I am unaware of it until the time comes where I inevitably notice it and scrape it off of my shoe, moving ontology from the “star” of the show, to the backbone of my epistemology. The fact that the gum traveled with me without my knowledge is the proof of ontology.

Edit: Notice how I am saying just “ontology” and I originally said “ontology of the gum” before which was incredibly misleading. Ontology wouldn’t draw boarders between the gum and my shoe at all, however there is still a unique expression happening to prove ontology here.

In other words, knowledge is proof that something was expressing on its own, or on its “unknown” before we knew it.

Edit: This post comes from a materialist monist perspective.

Hello everyone, I go by Shallow, and I’m currently developing my own philosophy of science that I’d like to stress test. I’m sure everyone here would be able to give strong, helpful critiques and feedback. My philosophy is called Identalism, it’s a blend of some of the following schools of thought:

Structural Realism, Phenomenology, Kantian philosophy, Neutral Monism, Pragmatism, Hard Determinism, and Scientific Realism

So for those who stop by and take a look at my work, thanks for stopping by, and I hope you enjoy reading:

Identalism is a philosophy of science and modern take on Kantian philosophy that attempts to blend quantum physics concepts and the human semantics that usually contradict it into a cohesive ontology that provides clarity with newly developed philosophical terms describing said ontology and epistemology.

The Terms:

The Fundament: the patterns of energy that make up total thermodynamic equilibrium. The Fundament acknowledges that the universe is still physically “real” even when it has little to no new information. Therefore, it is the closest thing we can get to nothingness: something is there, but it is eternally meaningless.

The Gradient: The measure of the informational change in the patterns of energy arranged separate from the total thermodynamic equilibrium. The gradient is a frustrating yet true part of reality— there is no specific, perfect point where “here” becomes “there” or where “tree” becomes “chair”; the space between the two “things” is infinitely divisible, because without an observer, the two things are just two energy density localizations morphing into each other.

Dent: a pattern of energy in a different arrangement than total thermodynamic equilibrium— its arrangement “carries” new information. These are patterns of energy that essentially “arrange into meaningful structures.”

\*There are two kinds of dents that we as living beings attribute “senses of belonging” to, along with prefixes we use to categorize dents that are either more structurally consistent or fluid. These are just semantic ways to categorize dents— they are just as much patterns of energy as any other dent is, and possess no new kind of magical material:

Terms (Continued):

Ident: Idents are the phenomenological dents. They are patterns of energy (dents) that arrange new patterns of energy (more dents) in order to understand a specific pattern of energy (a dent). These dents are different than the “dents-in-themselves” when it comes to a sense of belonging, however there is nothing magical going on— they are just regular dents on an ontological level. On an epistemological level though, they are fundamental as they are literally “energy patterns of known things.” “Generalizating” is the fundamental mechanism of identing.

Comprodent: Comprodents are similar to the regular dent when it comes to a “sense of belonging” in that they don’t belong to one, single identor as an ident does. They differ from just a regular dent though, as they are patterns of energy that universally influence different identors to arrange energy patterns differently. Biological versions of comprodents are emotional chemicals such as oxytocin and adrenaline. Semantic comprodents are using spoken or written dents to influence someone’s identing. In regular semantics, definitions would be comprodents, as Identalism claims: “definitions are the most important compromises.”

Consis-(dents, idents, comprodents):
A prefix that determines from an identative perspective that a localized density of energy patterns creates a uniform structure that we can constantly observe. Consistent in nature.

Flui-(dents, idents, comprodents):
A prefix that determines from an identative perspective that a localized density of energy patterns is creating a temporary structure that we can only observe in a specific moment. Fluid in nature.

Identalism’s Ontological and Epistemological Statements:

Reality ≠ Existence:
Identalism outlines a distinction between the two. Existence is seen as a strict physical term, whereas “reality” is existence in context. In other words we don’t “figure out what’s real and what's not” in identalism. Instead, every single thing is “real” from an existence perspective, however one’s own identing may not align with the handy and rigorous comprodents we use to define existence, not experience it. Hallucinations are “not real” in the sense that they don’t match with the qualities of the master societal comprodents we have for anything that “exists”. The ident a hallucinator describes as a “human” would be far across The Gradient from the master comprodent we have developed for a human.

Defining ≠ Identifying:
Similar to the previous statement, Identalism claims that you cannot directly “experience a definition.” Experience is about moving through existence confined to hypothetical “perfect” definitions of things that we obviously weren’t handed a direct rulebook for, therefore cursing us with the forever nuanced position that there’s always more knowledge to gain when we attempt to understand these definitions. But this doesn’t mean that our definitions of things aren’t extremely accurate. Furthermore, if we were given perfect definitions of things, then accuracy wouldn’t be a concept that exists. Our definitions wouldn’t be “super accurate amazing awesome perfect peeerrrfectiooooooonn!” They would just “be.” The mechanism by which we understand reality operates on a gradient of accuracy, and whether it troubles you or not, that’s the reality. Idents are the “blunt force” reality that hits you directly in your senses, whereas master comprodents of things that exist such as apples or chemicals are just our most accurate interpretations of said dents. It’s why the school of thought is named “identalism”, because identing is the gateway of knowledge to developing comprodents belonging to our own species, which is the only way to understand this objective, previously undefined existence of dents.

Identalism Concerns:

Flat Universe vs Finite Box:
Identalism currently works along the Flat Universe model that has been supported by the Planck Space Telescope. If there is overwhelming evidence that the universe is a finite, enclosed system, then The Fundament will change from a definition of an eternal state to a “temporary state” for energy. The Fundament will also lose some weight as a term, because the fundament will feel less definitive if it’s just a temporary state where dents don’t exist until they inevitably exist again. But Identalism works within science, not the other way around, so I am happy to change it if necessary.

Ident/Comprodent Entanglement:
I never before considered that there could be biological comprodents, and this has made the distinction between these two terms even fuzzier. Comprodents, being patterns of energy that dictate Idents, are fundamental to the Identing process. The presence of “qualia” though, that your overall “happy feeling” and my overall “happy feeling” are different, is what seems to be the primary saving grace of the Ident term, however.

“The Gradient” controversy:
The Gradient may seem like a convenient cop-out when discussing my terms. “How can a computer file behave both like a flui-dent and a consis-dent?” When my answer is simply “The Gradient” I know it can be frustrating, but there are things to consider, such as “did you have the computer file stored away or open and being manipulated for most of its lifetime? Likely it was stored away most of the time, meaning on the gradient it falls more in line ultimately with a consis-dent.” That is the best answer I can give; like I said, the gradient is unsatisfying yet a fundamental part of reality, when you have a reality where everything arises from the same fundamental material (energy).