Realistic & Objective
This is because empirical evidence is based on science, and its universality is proven through absolute logical consequences. Although it doesn't necessarily require concrete evidence, it is already empirical proof because the logical consequences are drawn from empirical evidence indirectly (from observations - not currently being observed).
Paradigm of Direct Evidence
Since there is no direct evidence unless it happens as closely as causing particle collisions.
Therefore, the closest direct empirical evidence is always just closer or closest.
Difference Between Empirical & Logical Consequences
This asserts that empirical evidence itself essentially concludes similarly to observing logical consequences.
The difference is that empirical evidence is a conclusion from the closest observations, while logical consequences are also a process of concluding that is not as close as observations in empirical activities.
Strength of Empirical & Logical Consequences
That even though both conclude through different observational distances, it does not mean differentiating their accuracy (consistency).
Although logical consequences do not involve observations as close as empirical activities, if the logical consequences are universal, then the proof is stronger than empirical evidence. This is because absolute logical consequences are the foundation of causality, which forms the structure of empirical proof.
Foundation of Causality
Why can logical consequences be stronger than empirical evidence because of their foundational basis for causality? This does not apply to relative logical consequences, which are conclusions at the level of causality itself.
However, absolute logical consequences are indeed the strongest conclusions because their realism, objectivity, and universality underpin empirical causality.
Basis of Causality
Why or is there indeed a basis for causality related to absolute logical consequences?
What are the characteristics of absolute logical consequences that form the basis of causality? Isn't causality already the foundation of reality, so since causality is the structure of empiricism, empirical evidence should be the strongest evidence (regardless of its potential to change)?
1⃣ Empirical evidence is not the strongest evidence, not because it can change over time, also...
2⃣ Empirical evidence is not weak evidence (empirical evidence is strong evidence), and its strength is not because its proof comes from the closest observations, or...
3⃣ Empirical evidence is the strongest because its foundation is causality, which is the foundation of reality❓
OBJECTIVITY
Rather, the strength of empirical evidence, despite its relative truth (causality is considered weak in consistency), lies in its objectivity. The advantage of empirical evidence is its easy observability and consistent patterns, making it easy to formulate practical, generally applicable rules (not just usable or acknowledged by certain people).
However, this does not mean that conclusions from absolute logical consequences are inferior to empirical evidence. Instead, since absolute logical consequences underpin causality, absolute logical consequences are stronger and even the strongest evidence compared to empirical evidence. Why❓
SIMULTANEITY
Because the dependency relationship in absolute (logical) consequences is no longer based on causality but rather on simultaneous continuity.
👉 EMPIRICAL. It is no longer "if this, then that," which can change between this and that depending on the situation and conditions (relative - not absolute), but rather...
👉 ABSOLUTE CONSEQUENCES. That "if this, then that must exist."
This is the strength of absolute consequences compared to empirical evidence, although without empirical evidence (without relative evidence), universal evidence would not be detected.
THUS, FINDING (CONCLUDING) ABSOLUTE CONSEQUENCES ALREADY INCLUDES EMPIRICAL (not contradictory to relativity) AND ALSO INCLUDES UNIVERSAL (with clear relative boundaries)
Of course, further discussion is needed on how from a narrow context (relative causality) can be concluded more broadly (universally), which will be discussed in the next writing.
At least here, the discussion of absolute consequences and causality (relative consequences) can strengthen the understanding of the main topic of "what is consciousness," although still very limited. This is because it does not yet reach the point of discussing the question "if cameras or computer systems can differentiate, then are cameras and computer systems also conscious like humans?"
At least, we can realize within the context of ourselves what "consciousness" is, so even if we cannot recognize consciousness elsewhere, at least we know the function of consciousness to not only recognize how conscious and how willing we are, which also needs to be scrutinized, but also to be aware of our own attitudes.
UNPOPULAR CONCEPT
This concept of absolute consequences (as I term it) is not (or not yet sufficiently) recognized among academic philosophers. The highest hope for philosophy that is considered capable of surpassing classical philosophy is analytical philosophy. However, even that (analytical philosophy) only reaches the level of analyzing causality. So, where is the depth if it doesn't converge on foundational aspects? This is because most of them are still unfamiliar with the concept of universal absolutes, believing everything to be subjective (not absolute), whereas subjectivity is a part of absoluteness. This confusion, plus the fact that there is something more fundamental than causality, certainly makes them feel more perplexed about the concept of absolute consequences and other related ideas.
Quantum Logic - Hilary Putnam
A philosopher who began to realize this and is widely known (although not as popular as recognized globally) is Hilary Putnam, with his emphasis on the need for axiomatic reasoning (reasoning in absolutes - quantum logic). I have not seen Putnam reach the understanding that there is truth beyond causality. Ultimately, after initially accepting the concept of quantum reasoning, Putnam rejected it and sought other reasoning that ultimately returned to classical reasoning.
Putnam's rejection of quantum logic is because he considered it merely a method of reasoning, not realizing that quantum reasoning had already entered the realm of absoluteness (reasoning in absolutes). Putnam thought quantum reasoning was just reasoning in puzzle blocks (breaking meaning into smaller meanings).
Vertical Causation - Wolfgang Smith
In contrast, Wolfgang Smith had indeed entered the realm of absoluteness, which is actually the quantum reasoning proposed by Putnam. This is because, on one hand, Putnam did not realize how to involve absoluteness in reasoning, except as a proposed solution to the quantum mystery with quantum reasoning. Thus, he encountered a dead end.
Wolfgang had indeed entered the dimension of absoluteness, so although he did not propose the concept of quantum reasoning, his reasoning traces had already entered the quantum level.
Vertical Causation
The Development of Reasoning
Thus, the development of reasoning so far increasingly involves absolute reasoning, which means also increasingly uncovering universal absolute truths and including them in the field of artificial intelligence technology.
Top comments (0)