|Known for||Natural philosopher|
There are many scientific theories out there. Some of them are mainstream, others are completely out of mainstream. Whatever their appeal however, how are we to know that a given scientific point of view is better or more accurate than another? Every theory has flaws after all, so how can we be sure that we're on the right track? Is there really a "right track"? Hasn't modern science taught us through its so-called "axiomatic method" that all knowledge is by necessity partial and fragmentary? Aren't we then forever subordinated to an arbitrary choice of postulates that will give us arbitrary theories and arbitrary knowledge? Is that what modernity brought us: knowledge as a matter of taste or "elegance" ? Or else, are we missing something?
It is in that context that I'd like to bring in a new understanding of the nature of reality, which explains its structure regardless of the particular postulates that will be used to build on a given scientific theory. I called this endeavor "Absolute Metaphysics", after Kurt Gödel's concept of a process of "clarification of meaning" expressed in his never publicly delivered 1961 lecture "The modern Development Of The Foundations Of Mathematics In The Light Of Philosophy".