yin yang
male female
light darkness
good bad
right wrong
true false
pain pleasure
joy sorrow
is isn't
known unknown
reality illusion
yours mine
maker taker
conservation liberal
in out
richer poorer
success failure
sick healthy
plug socket
space earth
rose thorn
What if a metaphysical theory can’t be tested in the way a physical theory supposedly can?
Could the reason be that metaphysical truth can’t be shown to be false?
For instance, imagine existence was a compressed form of emptiness.
Where the compression process created a loss needed for a universe to exist.
Why might that be a metaphysical testing problem?
Maybe because the testing method would somehow need to get outside of emptiness to examine its metaphysical status?
Something a physical testing method happening within a material universe wouldn’t need to do.
Because if emptiness was inherently spaceless, timeless and formless any test conducted from the standpoint within existence should need to pop-out of existence to assess the nature of the void.
If the void had no existential nature, there would be nothing testable.
If so, whatever emptiness “is” should be prior to being zipped down into space, time and form.
Like looking in an empty cereal box to see if a corn flake exists.
If there’s nothing found it means the container is truly empty.
Notice the eyeball is outside the box looking inside the box.
Something needed for a physical test.
With the possibility there may be one corn flake found still stuck in a corner of the box.
Meaning the theory the box is empty could be proven false.
To say emptiness is the root and ground of existence poses an inherent metaphysical problem to test if there’s nothing beyond the void.
Because there would be no way to get outside of the void to eyeball a test if existence is a form of emptiness.
If so, metaphysically testing to confirm anything about emptiness should be expected to fall flat-lined on its face.
Impossible because the void as such means it would have no testable nature.
Unlike something that exists.
Because existing things means they have a temporal and spatial form that should make them testable.
Now imagine something like a “presentment of knowledge” riding in as a possible unexpected way to rescue what’s unknowable.
It won’t deliver factual truth.
Perhaps it might whisper metaphysical truth.
By not divorcing metaphysical truth from what is considered objective reality.
Binding what’s metaphysical to what’s physical as if two sides of the same objective reality.
Where a presentment of knowledge could support a worldview based on a set of foundational assumptions to be enacted upon as if true despite.
As a metaphysical inner-stellar constellation of magically held planets bound seamlessly together in an unproven symphonic connection.
Knowing a factual test has the advantage of showing a theory can be proved false.
While still saying something about the metaphysical nature of existence based on how the world may have come to be.
In terms of fitting the way things really do play.
For instance, does everything experienced appear to be fleeting, partial, imperfect?
If “yes,” why? If “no,” why not?
Notice to answer means a metaphysical theory just hatched.
Does it line-up with the way things are experienced?
If a metaphysical theory rings true as a presentment of knowledge it should be considered formulated.
As worldview hands to present one’s world to view.
Who knows, what if the world now makes the right kind of nonsense?
Based on the contextual nonsense for anything possible.
