[The previous series, 116, can be found [url=https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/jrps-bite-sized-metaphysics-series-116/557/1]here. This series, 117, picks up with the topic arrived at the end of the previous series. An index with links to all parts of the work as they are posted can be found here.]
[Entry 1 for “in question of multiple IFs”]
So far in this Section of chapters, I have been proceeding by analyzing concepts which, if accepted, would shut down attempts at discovering anything particularly true about ultimate reality. These concepts have turned out, on analysis, to be either ultimately self-refuting (so that even trying to accept them ends up requiring that these concepts be rejected by their own acceptance); or else to be (or at least to require) some other concept instead that was supposed to be opposed by the concept.
Thus, the concept of an infinite ontological regression, ends up either leading to self-refutation (where there can be no legitimate grounds for discovering and so believing an infinite regression to be true) or else it actually ends up requiring at least one Independently existing Fact to be true after all: the regression itself, which was proposed as an alternative to the existence of a final Independent Fact, turns out to have the final characteristics of the IF. Or at least, it turns out to have the final characteristics of one IF.
But, instead of an infinite number of systems or levels of reality, each of them substantially different from one another and each dependent on something more fundamentally real and foundational with (supposedly) no final foundational reality that just exists without dependence on something else more fundamental again–could there not be a multiple number of Independent Facts?
This question has to be asked, because in the process of trying to avoid absurdity, I have discovered I have to introduce the concept of what I am calling an Independent (or alternately an Interdependent) Fact–an IF. As I have done this, I find I am essentially recognizing and calling attention to something which everyone at bottom agrees exists; because in the process of checking the systemic integrity of fundamental proposals, I have discovered that even the opponents of an IF, if they are saying anything other than meaningless nonsense, are talking (without realizing it) about an IF.