Metaphysical manifesto №2

This document constitutes a metaphysical manifesto with general-philosophical supplements. The concepts presented in the manifesto are set forth without proofs, or with only a minimal number of them. Logical coherence and the internal integrity of the system itself serve here as a form of justification. It is anticipated that this manifesto will be updated and expanded. This manifesto serves as an extension and deepening of the work “The Essence of General Metaphysics”. In that work, in addition to an attempt to ground the method of metaphysical modelling from nothingness and notes on phenomenology, the physical structure is formalized by means of a graph of sets (with binary relations) that recursively (and randomly at the level of a single set) negate themselves, thereby generating new sets and new structure; furthermore, through their self-negation they manifest the probable hierarchies of their emergence (which one most probably arose from which). This is likely the simplest variant of algorithmic generation. At the time of composing this manifesto, the author considers that this genuinely reflects physical structure at a very deep level; however, it most probably does not constitute the deepest structural level [see the section “Ontology”, §5 — §5.3.2]. This may not be a critical point for formalization in the final theory (though doubts on this matter remain), just as, for instance, the meaninglessness of transmitting qualia through text is not critical. It is likewise not excluded that the problem of the causal self-reference “whole ⇄ part” may prove less intractable than it appears. By the time of writing this text, the author had attempted to resolve this problem and observed that it does not yield easily: he concluded that a composite approach — not purely theoretical, but also practical — would be more judicious, and resolved to observe what results from it. In this document, different theses vary in their degree of precision and speculativeness (because the conception continues to develop); however, the conceptual framework is highly determinate, with the exception of the problems identified in §5 — §5.3.2 of the “Ontology” section and in the “Current Self-Critique” section. It bears separate emphasis that, in developing this document, no particular stress was placed on maximizing definitional precision, since doing so would be counterproductive here; the primary aim was to convey the essence and logical structure of the metaphysical conception that the author currently holds. It is important to note that what is at issue is precisely definitional precision: within any single piece of writing, definitions must be maximally isomorphic, and metaphysics must contain a rigid formal core that is resistant to logical critique. Logic, in turn, should follow from a priori metaphysics, together with mathematics, physics, and a formal theory of consciousness — this is what one should strive for in developing the most fundamental science, and the author has, for the present, accomplished what was within his means.