METAPHYSICAL, META-CRITICAL INFERENCE

METAPHYSICAL, META-CRITICAL INFERENCE



The fundamental rules of meta-critical inference I have found to be the following:

(1) Take an extreme problem within criticism of some subject. It is extreme in order to be rhetorically justifiable.

(2) Find the abstract property of that thing that is most analogous to space, time, energy, mass, a valid theory, or a specific proven problem.

(3) If necessary, apply a specialized explanation to explain and justify the conclusion that there is a correlation between 2 and 1.

(4) Ascribe the abstract property to the original problem, as a critical distinction, by applying the most relevant theory from 3.

For example, (relevant-in-some-way concepts):

Q1: Humans are mortal.
Q2: Mortality involves attenuation within time.
Q3: If life can be artificially created, it in all likely is artificial.
So, attenuation within time is a form of editing humans.
(support: editing may be either natural or artificial).
Q4: Human editing is responsible for mortality.

Another example, (metaphysical addiction):

P1: Smoking is a problem for many people.
P2: One of the problem of smoking is repetition.
P3: Smoking may be the biggest cause of qua necessary repetition, since cigarettes are so addictive.
(support: even small amounts of nicotine are highly addictive Therefore, cigarettes
affect many more people than those who think they are affected. Further assumptions: Repetition is meaningful mostly in human contexts. Human psychology is widely influenced by outside stimuli. Partial influence is partial determination.)
Q1: Repetition is (not morally, but justifiably) a result of cigarettes.

Another example, (the Holy Argument):





Q1: Humans are not God right now.

Q2: If God exists, since he is the creator, humans would be a product of Him.
[Further support: insofar as humans are a product of God, then God of some kind exists. At least, it is possible to create humans by being a creator. Otherwise,
humans are impossible, because they cannot be created.]

Q3: If humans evolve, humans must evolve into God, or, if humans are the creators of humans, then something better than something that creates humans.
[Further support: Either humans evolve into something better than humans, or
humans evolve into something better than creating humans. In either case, that is closer to God than where humans are now].

Q4: Humans are evolving, so humans are evolving into God.



Another example,

Q1: If God has all power, it means he is obese with power.

Q2: God is good.

Q3: Obesity is an evil power.

Q4: God is not obese with power, or obesity is sometimes good, or obesity is sometimes not powerful, or God isn't good, or omnipotence is not obese.











Nathan Coppedge / SCSU 2016 / 02 / 18, P