STATIC TRUTH-BASED MODELS
Static truth-based logic is a reasoning that dominated most western thinking. It is a way of thinking where Truth is an unipolar and static concept. For example, «substance» was taken as the metaphysical point of departure by Aristotle formal logic; an «abstract circle» was taken as the point of departure by Hegel’s contradiction-based dialectics; «Capital» was selected as the point of departure by Marx’s historical materialism. Also «Empiric effect of an uncertainity» was selected by sofists and newtonians and later positivists-inflationists, all of them based in a «subjective mathematical truth» as proposed by Bayesian sets’ theorists.
The laws of identity (A = A), contradiction (P ¬P), and excluded middle (P∨¬P) form the 1st principle of the truth-based mathematical abstraction. Following the 1st principle, modern set theory as a foundation for mathematics and computer science requires an element in a set to be self-evident and the properties of a set to be independent of the nature of its elements. This «independence» is the same as to say: «We are truth seekers that don’t need a shred of logical dynamics for reciprocal interaction». The problem with all of these necessary metaphysical assumptions of Static truth-based logics is that without formal syntax and semantics for equilibrium and harmony, none of them cannot be regarded as a coherent logical system. So the so called formal logic can and needs to be developed further to be formal or more formal.
Static thruth-based models, despite much aesthetic effort put to it, excludes any possibility of a formal definition for the ultimate Being to reveal all beings with logically definable causality with regularity. It also doubles its uncoherent logic by claiming that the essence of such and all beings is contradiction, rivality or an independent singleness, so with this redudance finally and for sure their truths will be contradictory, not only but specially within their own laws. This tells why nihilism is unavoidable in clasical metaphysics, why God is needed as an exemplar being or the prime mover aimed to be a figure for rational-social consensus that ends any further philosophical review (as the subjective truth at a personal level also does) and why the root of a type hierarchy of all beings has to be labeled with a NULL value (i.e. void, vacuum, non-alive motion, etc).
Niels Bohr, as Leibniz, were two passionate followers oy YinYang equilibrium. However, they failed in giving it a more in depth analisys.
«The viewpoint of complementarity presents itself as a rational generalization of the very ideal of causality. – Niels Bohr»
As a result on keeping attached to Static truth-based dualism (a bit like Hegel or Leibniz…), Bohr stopped short of offering logically definable causality for quantum mechanics because its proposed dualism doesn’t account for the fundamental property of Nature’s holistic bipolar coexistence in dynamic equilibrium and harmony.
Bohr, as many scientists, couldn’t accept Einstein’s stand of a «glove pair» to be in a deterministic uncertainity state, as later defined by B. Kosko at his «Fuzzy vs Probability» paper. Neither Einstein, despite appreciating it and its last emotional letter about the monism of the Love we humans feel, didn’t officially accept the holism of the Mach principle, and sarcastically defined the quantum entanglement as “spooky action at a distance” instead of seeing it as “interaction at a distance through a length”, probably because he felt that proposing Earth matter has a galactic length and our human bodies having a enormous galactic lenght it was a thought too hard to swallow by humans of its time.
While ether, monad, monopoles, and strings are imaginable quantum agents originated from singularity but so far untestable, one idea of him was that «In fact, in some cases individual objects don’t even have an independent existence but rather exist only as part of an ensemble of many». The problem is that he, as the others and despite being brave to align with the multiple universes theory, didn’t want to thread that connectivity further, and relied in the ambiguos, vague and suffered infinity.
When Hawking declared the death of philosophy without telling what he meant by «individual» or which are the cases «where there is no need of dependance or equilibrium», his many universes are still truth-based and being-centered. Since being and nothingness share the same philosophical subjectivity root, Hawking null («a great many universes were created out of nothing») like Leibniz monad neither avoided nihilism.
A bit of the same criticism, but in another sense, can be said for Laozi explanations of YinYang dynamics:
«The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao; the name that can be named is not the eternal name» also added to the mystery because it contradicts what Yi Jing claimed: «One Yin and one Yang are called the Dao.» Laozi would be correct if the Dao were defined as a limited truth, a linear vision as is understable in Western philosophy and science. The problem he had is that we cannot explain the eternal Dao in a limited linear static-truth interpretation, and instead it should have be defined the Dao as an holistic dynamic truth or the essence that reveals all beings because it is eternal.
Thus, we have no other option for truth seeking but to choose the holistic, equilibrium-based and logically definable YinYang bipolar dynamic interpretation, where we can also establish linear truths, only in a fuzzy greys’ scale.