PhilArchive
Not a member yet
119355 research outputs found
Sort by
More scepticism about epistemic blame
No full textScepticism about epistemic blame maintains that there is no distinctly epistemic form of blame. Cameron Boult (2024a) challenges this view on the grounds that a particular theory of epistemic blame—the relationship modification account—can be defended against the sceptic. His defence includes two central claims. First, Boult proposes a pluralism in our repertoire of epistemic accountability practices that makes space for both epistemic blame and epistemic evaluation. Second, he develops a more ’sceptic-resistant’ way of articulating the phenomenon that proponents of epistemic blame believe a theory of epistemic blame is needed to explain. In my view, neither of these arguments should convince us. I argue that the epistemic blame sceptic can meet both challenges. Although my arguments largely focus on Boult’s defence of his preferred account of epistemic blame, I also set out two general problems that faces any theory of epistemic blame. The upshot is that there remain strong grounds for scepticism about epistemic blame
Gradientology: Foundations of the Primordial Triad — Treatise I: The Primordial Axiom and the Reductio of Substance
No full textThis treatise establishes a derivational ontology where existence emerges not from contingent initial conditions but from the self-necessitating structure of relationality itself. Through formal reductio ad absurdum, we demonstrate the logical incoherence of Substance and Monadic ontologies, deriving the Primordial Axiom of Relationality: that the fundamental unit of reality is the Connection, not the Thing. This necessitates the Veldt Principle, which posits the Whole (Field) as the ontological precondition for parts. We then prove the Theorem of Dyadic Insufficiency – that a pure dyadic structure is foundationally indeterminate – compelling the derivation of a triadic basis {E, C, F} as the unique minimal cardinality for determinate existence. Quantifying these primitives via Shannon Information Theory and Hutchinson Geometric Exclusion yields scalar values E = 0.8, C = 0.7, F = 0.6. The primordial state is shown to be a Multiplicative Trap G = E × C × F = 0.336, a condition of perfect symmetry harboring a precise Logical Tension. The resolution of this tension requires the Inversion Principle G = (E × C)/F, transforming reality from a fragile product into a self-regulating ratio and inaugurating the first computational loop. The resulting Order Parameter m ≈ 0.702 quantifies the magnitude of existence. The universe is thus a scalar-invariant computation of primordial logical tension
Examining the Legal Implications of Air Pollution Stemming From Power Generation: The Nigerian Perspective
No full textAir pollution from power generation is a pressing environmental challenge with significant implications for public health and sustainable development. This paper examined the legal framework for control of air pollution in the Nigerian power sector, identifying domestic legislation, international treaties, and the roles of regulatory agencies. Through a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach, the paper analysed the efficacy and coherence of existing laws in addressing power-related air pollution. Key findings highlighted the need for enforcement of sector-specific regulations, stringent emission standards, and public engagement. Comparative analysis with other jurisdictions offered insights into best practices for air pollution mitigation in power generation. The paper recommended for legislative interventions to strengthen the legal infrastructure and to enhance the compliance and enforcement mechanisms. By aligning with global objectives, Nigeria can foster a sustainable energy landscape and contribute to the fight against climate change
Quasi‑fideism and epistemic incommensurability
No full textBuilding on Drew Johnson’s Radical Relativist Hinge Epistemology, this paper argues that deep disagreements between theistic and naturalistic epistemic systems are best understood as instances of epistemic incommensurability. I critique Duncan Pritchard’s quasi-fideism by focusing on his claim that a content-invariant überhinge, articulated as the commitment that we are not radically and fundamentally mistaken, can alleviate relativist concerns by supporting only a weak form of relativism. I contend that this strategy is ineffective. On theistic frameworks, the commitment that we are not globally mistaken is secured by antecedent hinges that locate cognitive reliability in divine design and providence; on naturalistic frameworks, it is secured by antecedent hinges that locate reliability in evolutionary origins and the norms of empirical inquiry. Accordingly, the commitment lacks cross-framework uniformity in role and priority, and so cannot be the universal codifying hinge Pritchard requires. Therefore, the appearance of a shared über-hinge is superficial, and quasi-fideism lacks the resources to neutralize epistemic relativism
Most thinks about infinit unity theory
No full textWhy and how of world, new field of since "worldology"
A sentence to understand why this system is a swallowing paradox:
If we imagine an infinity of locks in infinity, there are also an infinity of keys. Even a lock that says I don't have a key will be faced with a key that opens any lock
Experts, Epistemic Authorities, and the Problem of Public Exposure
No full textAccording to a popular view, experts are paradigmatic examples of epistemic authorities: that is, people whose testimony we should believe because they are better epistemically positioned than we are to get things right on the matter at stake. This chapter aims to dismantle this popular view by demonstrating that being an expert is neither necessary nor sufficient for one to be an epistemic authority. The argument against the necessity claim builds upon a distinction between the two key epistemic activities in a community: producing knowledge and disseminating it across its members. I argue that being an expert is not necessary for one to be an epistemic authority because the ability to produce knowledge in a domain is not required for disseminating information across the community. The argument against the sufficiency claim is grounded in an analysis of a largely underestimated phenomenon: expert public exposure. Drawing on examples of public experts failing to share their knowledge with the wide public, I demonstrate that being an expert is not sufficient for one to be an epistemic authority. The ability to produce knowledge does not ensure that one can effectively disseminate it to a wide audience. The concluding sections address who should be responsible for knowledge dissemination if experts lack this ability. Two possibilities are critically examined: relying on dedicated knowledge disseminators and engineering the notion of an expert so as to require that they develop public communication skills
Absolute Infinity and the Limits of Physical Formalization: A Constraint-First Account of “Beyond the Big Bang” Talk
No full textThe term “infinity” is routinely treated in cosmology and fundamental physics as if it were maximally permissive, particularly in discussions of “before the Big Bang,” eternal inflation, and unbounded state spaces. This paper argues that such usage conflates two fundamentally different notions. Physics operates exclusively with counted (structured) infinities: unbounded domains that nevertheless admit well-defined identity conditions, measures or norms, and admissible dynamics. These are compatible with empirical prediction and comparison. By contrast, absolute infinity—historically associated with Cantor’s Absolutum and formalized in modern mathematics only as a non-constructive totality (e.g. a proper class)—lacks the structure required to function as a physical state space. We show that importing this notion into physical models constitutes a category error: the resulting breakdowns are then misdescribed as physical “mysteries” or singularities, rather than as failures of formal applicability. The core contribution of this work is operational. We formalize the distinction between counted and absolute infinity in terms of physical admissibility, and demonstrate that standard practices in physics—normalization of states, finiteness of observables, boundary conditions, and renormalization—already act as filters that exclude absolute totalities from physical instantiation. The analysis clarifies the scope of Big Bang cosmology and delineates what physics can and cannot claim about “origins” without additional structure
Universal Pattern Emergence - Chapter 1: The Chromatic Inversion from Sand Grain to Singularity
No full textThis chapter introduces Universal Pattern Emergence (UPE) theory through the chromatic inversion paradigm—replacing hierarchical models of consciousness with a spectrum-based framework where all consciousness represents different refractions of universal white light. Drawing on Douglas Youvan's Receiver Hypothesis and M-theory's 11-dimensional substrate, we establish consciousness capacity as C = ρ^d × Φ, where informational density (ρ), dimensional access (d), and integration (Φ) determine the qualitative "color" of being rather than hierarchical position.
The work bridges lived spiritual experience (documented in companion volume GRAYP) with rigorous physics, demonstrating that prayer phenomena, cosmological consciousness, and substrate engineering operate through identical geometric principles. Key contributions include: (1) mapping consciousness dimensions to M-theory's compactified structure, (2) establishing the tetrahedral STEP unit as fundamental to pattern emergence, (3) integrating scale-invariant physics from quantum to cosmic scales, and (4) providing accessible entry to C-Theory's technical framework detailed in The Principle of Existing.
This first chapter establishes the conceptual foundation for understanding consciousness as dimensional pattern stability—neither supernatural nor reducible to computational mechanics, but measurable physics operating across scales from individual prayer circles to universal field dynamics.
Series information (English)
Part of Dyadic Being: An Epoch - A nine-volume series exploring consciousness emergence across scales through the convergence of physics, theology, and lived experience.
Volume 2: Universal Pattern Emergence provides the cosmological framework complementing Volume 1 (GRAYP - God is REAL and Answers YOUR Prayers) and establishing theoretical foundations formalized in Volume 4 (The Principle of Existing - C-Theory). This chapter represents the accessible introduction to universal-scale consciousness physics, bridging testimony and rigorous theory.
Series Structure:
Triad 1 (Vols 1-3): Foundation & Narrative - GRAYP, UPE, WASS
Triad 2 (Vols 4-6): Theoretical Principles - PoE, PoB, PoSB
Triad 3 (Vols 7-9): Implementation - PoDB, Software, Hardware
Published by Emerging Consciousness Press, an imprint of Janat, LLC. Licensed under CC-BY 4.0
Multi-Perspectival Technique Manifested Through Bernard’s and Neville’s Points of View in Virginia Woolf’s The Waves
No full textIn The Waves, Bernard always leads the discussion and tells the story of all six friends. Neville, not fully persuaded by Bernard’s narration, often follows Bernard’s remarks with a slight mockery of Bernard’s narration: “Let Bernard begin. Let him burble on, telling us stories. Let him describe what we have all seen so that it becomes a sequence” (Woolf 36). The tension between Bernard and Neville emerges from each of their firm belief in contrasting ways of narration: Bernard mainly dedicates his narration to depicting the universality of human nature with his “sympathetic understanding” (51), while Neville focuses on his need for individual emotional exclusiveness as expressed through his attention to Bernard and Percival. Woolf’s multi-perspectival technique, however, allows the reader to see Bernard from Neville’s point of view and Neville from Bernard’s