设万维读者为首页 万维读者网 -- 全球华人的精神家园 广告服务 联系我们 关于万维
 
首  页 新  闻 视  频 博  客 论  坛 分类广告 购  物
搜索>> 发表日志 控制面板 个人相册 给我留言
帮助 退出
 
中国现代哲学家学会  
发现自己的绝对力量,它会震惊世界  
网络日志正文
Why AA Cannot Be Falsified 2026-02-09 03:53:20

Why AA Cannot Be Falsified

1. Clarifying the Scope

In Instancology, almost everything is open to falsification:

The structure of WI (World Instance)

The RA / AR / RR distinctions

The epistemological tools

Applications in science, language, logic, cognition

Even the claim that structure cannot self-ground

All of these belong to structure.

And what belongs to structure is analyzable, testable, and contestable.

AA is the only exception.

The question is: why?

2. Falsification Requires Structure

To falsify something, three conditions are required:

A proposition

A defined domain

A possible counter-condition

All three require structure.

Falsification operates inside:

language

logic

conceptual differentiation

identity and negation

It presupposes a structured field in which claims can be evaluated.

AA is explicitly defined as non-structural.

Therefore, AA cannot be falsified for the same reason that:

A horizon cannot be stepped outside of.

The background of a frame cannot be framed.

Falsification applies only to what can be structured.

AA is not.

3. AA Is Not a Hypothesis

AA is not:

A being

A cause

A force

A creator

A principle

An entity

An infinite object

It is not even a positive claim.

It is the recognition that:

The root of structure cannot be one more structure.

If someone demonstrates that structure can self-ground coherently,

AA collapses.

So the falsifiable point lies not in AA itself,

but in the logical argument that demands non-structural termination.

AA is the terminus of that argument,

not an additional structural assertion.

4. The Regress Issue

Critics often say:

“Why not infinite regress?”

Mathematically, infinite series are coherent.

But existentially, endless structural grounding is like Zeno’s paradox.

Zeno of Elea showed how language can divide motion infinitely.

But reality is not infinitely subdivided.

Infinite decomposition is a linguistic operation.

Similarly:

Endless structural regress is a symbolic chase.

It never changes explanatory type.

If grounding never exits structure,

grounding never occurs.

Thus:

Termination requires categorical break.

AA is that break.

5. Why AA Is Not Self-Sealing

A common objection:

“If AA cannot be falsified, isn’t it dogmatic?”

No.

AA is not immune because it is protected.

It is outside falsification because falsification itself is structural.

This is similar — though not identical — to how

Immanuel Kant treated transcendental conditions

or how

Martin Heidegger treated the Being-question.

But AA goes further.

AA is not a transcendental structure.

AA is the recognition that structure cannot ultimately ground structure.

If someone shows structure can self-ground without regress,

AA is unnecessary.

Therefore, what is testable is:

The impossibility of brute structural grounding.

AA itself is not a hypothesis.

It is the logical consequence if structure fails to terminate itself.

6. Paradox and Language

You have argued:

Paradox exists in language, not in reality.

Russell’s paradox is symbolic.

Zeno’s paradox is symbolic.

Similarly:

If someone says, “A limitless AA must impose limits on WI,”

That contradiction arises from treating AA as something.

But AA is not something.

All contradictions about AA arise from re-structuring it.

AA is not beyond because it is infinite.

AA is beyond because it is not within structural categorization at all.

7. The Final Position

AA cannot be falsified because:

It is not an object.

It is not a proposition about a thing.

It is not within existential category.

It is not a structural element.

It is not even properly describable.

It is the termination of structural chase.

Everything else in Instancology is open to falsification.

AA is not falsifiable because falsification belongs to WI.

AA marks the boundary of WI.

If structure can ground itself, AA disappears.

If structure cannot ground itself, AA is necessary.

That is the entire logical landscape.

No mysticism.

No theology.

No shield.

Only the demand that structure cannot be its own ultimate explanation.

And that demand — not AA itself — is where the real debate lies.

浏览(612) (0) 评论(0)
发表评论
我的名片
中国现代哲学家学会
注册日期: 2015-01-10
访问总量: 1,562,826 次
点击查看我的个人资料
Calendar
最新发布
· 论“悟性”与“理性”在中西哲学中的
· The AA IS and IS NOT
· Why AA Cannot Be Falsified
· Two armies
· 人为什么思考人生的意义——绝对在
· Reason is Inside the Box, RW I
· WuXing Beyond Reason: Why Whol
友好链接
· Rabbit:Stinger 的博客
· hare:hare的博客
· bunny2:bunny2的博客
· microsoftbug:microsoftbug的博
· InstanceTV:InstanceTV的博客
分类目录
【Mingcheng】
【心言】
· Free book: The Ontology of Nat
· 同学会会长关于哲学研究的对话(2
· 同学会会长关于哲学研究的对话
· 天下大势
· 爱者共天地
· 死亡万岁 -- 清明节留下的一缕思
· 重发: 哲学之爱从何而来?
· [中哲会]新程序启动说明
· 哲学之爱从何而来?
【电视直播】
· USA-China in Depth (1)
· 《中哲会》TV直播频道
【政治】
· 毛泽东的“民族解放”神话:专制的
· 为什么中国人反驳西方理论的观点
· 台湾立足基础-造原子弹
· 中国人缺乏理性会有什么后果?
· 您愿意选谁作为第一届“网络中华
· 中国未来的社会结构(2)
· 我建议在万维上进行一次中国未来
· 川普现在唯一的愿望是当个“前总
· 范例党党员章程
· 谈中国民运的战略与策略(范例党
【传统文化】
· 国学与西方思想的区别是狗尾与貂
· 必须立刻弹劾川普!
· 没文化的鬼子
· 新年伊始中国“十马奔腾”
· 扯住教皇不放—今天世界哪个国家
· 为什么中国读书人很难摆脱中国文
· 中国人的“感性逻辑”
· 也谈“中国知识分子堕落”
· "现在打中国,输赢无悬念&q
· 说!“你脱,还是不脱?!”
【深山兰】
· 从二例看中国古代的思维方式
【其它】
· 语言与国家:俞兴文明进步论的学
· 胡杰纪录片:无人区画展
· 美国为什么伟大?- 只因为一个充
· 六四用一句话说
· 华人应该如何与西方人交往?(1)
· 中国人”也”是同欧洲人一样的理性
· 万维有太多哲学误导!
· 一月二十号白宫会发生哪一幕?
· 中国问题:文字
· 用事实驳斥中共关于朝鲜战争的谎
【比较政策】
· 阶级分化的复苏
【一般】
· 中国为什么不适合搞民主?
· 伯克利新名言:赢了-就是不认输
· 什么是今日美国社会的根本问题?
· 美国人打输了还是朋友,中国人..
· 川普—你为什么如此愚蠢?!
· 压垮川普的最后一根稻草-乔治亚
· 看来川普...
· 中国对中国人的影响
· 中国文化在哪些方面体现了幼稚?
· 对中国人“批判”的看法 - 兼答金
【远方】
· 介绍一下荒诞论:远方的孤独
【何岸泉】
· 辩证法与放屁(ZT)
【哲学资料】
· 为相对主义辩护
· Instancology for Philosophers-
· Ten American Philosophers
· (1)马克思和恩格思的“唯物主义”
· Phenomenology of Spirit, Chapt
· 德国政府决定:在全球范围对使用
· 为什么人需要哲学?
· ZT:Rights
· Is your pet psychic?
· Twin Telepathy: Is there a ‘Sp
【中军】
· 关于精神的问题
· 思维创新的哲学理解(下)
· 思维创新的哲学理解(上)
· 人生究竟是什么
· 悟性创新的本性及闪失
· 悟性的创新及孩子的例证
· 怎样进行讨论
· 文字、语音、语义与创新
· 哲学研究能干点儿啥
· 中国缺少创新的各种看法
【徒子】
· 论“悟性”与“理性”在中西哲学中的
· The AA IS and IS NOT
· Why AA Cannot Be Falsified
· Two armies
· 人为什么思考人生的意义——绝对在
· Reason is Inside the Box, RW I
· WuXing Beyond Reason: Why Whol
· 为什么范式哲学类似哥德尔定理和
· 天要亮了- 下一步需要作什么
· 真的吗?
【嘎子】
· 关于丘成桐的讲话的评论
· 已经转到嘎子博客
· <二> 原本打算单独写一篇
· 哲学同真理的关系以及辩证法的本
【几子】
· What Will Happen to President
· 随想:可口可乐
· 分形与卦像:漫话混沌,科学,与
· 浅议科学实证主义
存档目录
2026-02-02 - 2026-02-13
2026-01-01 - 2026-01-30
2025-12-01 - 2025-12-31
2025-11-01 - 2025-11-30
2025-10-02 - 2025-10-31
2025-09-01 - 2025-09-29
2025-08-03 - 2025-08-28
2025-07-01 - 2025-07-29
2025-06-01 - 2025-06-26
2025-05-01 - 2025-05-30
2025-04-01 - 2025-04-30
2025-03-06 - 2025-03-31
2025-02-04 - 2025-02-17
2025-01-23 - 2025-01-23
2024-11-10 - 2024-11-10
2024-08-21 - 2024-08-21
2024-07-28 - 2024-07-28
2024-05-13 - 2024-05-15
2024-03-13 - 2024-03-18
2024-02-06 - 2024-02-06
2024-01-02 - 2024-01-31
2023-12-22 - 2023-12-31
2023-11-05 - 2023-11-19
2023-10-03 - 2023-10-29
2023-09-08 - 2023-09-25
2023-08-12 - 2023-08-20
2023-07-15 - 2023-07-15
2023-06-12 - 2023-06-12
2023-02-02 - 2023-02-27
2023-01-01 - 2023-01-24
2022-12-06 - 2022-12-31
2022-11-30 - 2022-11-30
2022-09-04 - 2022-09-25
2022-08-01 - 2022-08-22
2022-07-01 - 2022-07-21
2022-06-04 - 2022-06-27
2021-03-01 - 2021-03-26
2021-02-02 - 2021-02-26
2021-01-01 - 2021-01-31
2020-12-16 - 2020-12-26
2020-11-03 - 2020-11-27
2020-10-02 - 2020-10-31
2020-09-03 - 2020-09-21
2020-08-07 - 2020-08-26
2020-07-02 - 2020-07-24
2020-06-06 - 2020-06-08
2020-05-01 - 2020-05-12
2020-04-02 - 2020-04-27
2020-03-01 - 2020-03-31
2020-02-04 - 2020-02-25
2020-01-01 - 2020-01-31
2019-12-01 - 2019-12-29
2019-11-02 - 2019-11-17
2019-10-09 - 2019-10-14
2019-09-01 - 2019-09-08
2019-08-01 - 2019-08-24
2019-07-01 - 2019-07-27
2019-06-01 - 2019-06-30
2019-05-04 - 2019-05-29
2019-04-01 - 2019-04-30
2018-01-01 - 2018-01-02
2016-04-14 - 2016-04-20
2015-07-02 - 2015-07-24
2015-06-02 - 2015-06-28
2015-05-01 - 2015-05-31
2015-04-01 - 2015-04-29
2015-03-01 - 2015-03-26
2015-02-01 - 2015-02-28
2015-01-10 - 2015-01-31
 
关于本站 | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站导航 | 隐私保护
Copyright (C) 1998-2026. Creaders.NET. All Rights Reserved.