COSMOSIS: The Structure of Reality

[Lavandula]

@JT0840

Foundational Terms

COSMOSIS uses a small set of foundational terms that act as anchors for the entire architecture. These terms are not academic abstractions; they are structural realities you are already embedded in.

Existence is the unavoidable fact that something is happening.

Here “existence” is defined with a synonymous term “something”.

What is “something”?

Defining a term with a synonymous term provides no real explanation, it’s an empty definition.

What is “something”? What is “existence”?

T.I. - You Know What It Is (feat. Wyclef) [Official Video]

Furthermore does existence necessitate “happening” or occurrence? While existence certainly can include “happening” is existence limited to it? Wouldn’t simply being be more fundamental than happening? Can’t something, can’t existence simply be?

This was previously discussed on the other forum here:

Re: Existence Is Infinite - Existence Is Infinite - Page 23 - The Philosophy...

Continuing, you state:

@JT0840

The Eight Truths

Truth I — Existence: Something exists. You cannot deny this without using it.

Again what is “existence”? The original definition is circular and empty utilizing a synonymous term “something” as its basis. What is “something”?

Moreover how is existence substantiated? How is existence realized? Where is existence? The framework provides no means of substantiation, it merely presents abstract declarations.

The philosophy suffers from the same issue Parmenides’ system did nearly 2,500 years ago. It provides no means of substantiation. It is locked in abstraction from the start.

@JT0840

COSMOSIS withstands the strongest objections.

COSMOSIS did not address these:

@anon51310602

@JT0840

COSMOSIS

A Reality-First Philosophical Framework

Status: Provisional, falsifiable, living document

Version: v1.3 (Language-tightened draft & expanded Absolutes)

Fascinating work.

It’s great to see a structured, developed system. That’s rare for the forum.

Upon review here are some questions and comments I have.

How do you define existence, exactly? And how does existence differ, if at all, from reality? Reality is explicitly defined in the Glossary however existence is not. Existence is seemingly never defined in the text. Ambiguous terms, especially ambiguous terms which overlap, invite confusion.

Further, the framework claims Absolutes yet offers a Correction Protocol. It’s an apparent structural contradiction. It’s absolutism with an escape hatch.

If core components of the framework are up for revision, if core features are subject to change then what does one really have with the system? It’s seemingly built upon sand.

The text does not actually demonstrate finiteness. Neither mathematically nor argumentatively. It simply declares it. Further, the claim of a finite universe ignores theories of an infinite universe:

“No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not.”

“It’s totally possible that the universe is infinite.”

By asserting finiteness is already proven you essentially violate your own rule of “reality first”.

The framework you present invites change. Revision is a core feature of the system. However that is its greatest weakness. If a system is subject to such massive change how solid is the system? I would argue not very solid.

The ontology presented here integrates concepts as parts of existence rather than changing to accommodate them. I would argue it is structurally solid in comparison.

That said it’s great to see an actual philosophical system being presented. I look forward to your response.