In this discourse, I will dissect the often dismissed concept of Circular Reasoning, considered a fallacy in both logic and psychology. This conventional dismissal fails to account for intricate phenomena such as circular causation (I. Harwey, 2019), self-regulating synchronization (Strogatz, 2003; further discussed in ‘Strogatz Sync‘ on YouTube), and homeostasis.
I posit that circular reasoning is actually fundamental to all logic, anchored firmly in the principles of conservation laws, which we will further explore. Yet, its effectiveness is intrinsically tied to “inherent interconnectedness and dimensionality.”
Take for example the “Eternal Return” and the “chicken or the egg” conundrum. These notions are not fundamentally flawed, but are relegated to being “practically useless” due to the erasure of the boundary between cause and effect. However, in real-life scenarios, this boundary is crystal clear, not due to an “acyclic” nature of reasoning but owing to the diverse outcomes stemming from different sequences of transformations. Such dynamism mandates a circular system grounded on more than three elements, envisaged as “orthogonal axes”.
To mathematically ground this, one can cite non-commutativity (as seen in two-step symmetric inequalities where A + B ≠ B + A) and non-associativity (observed in three-step inequalities), operating beyond a tri-dimensional space (refer to “Dialectic, Algebra, and Panpsychism“).
Hence, truth resides in reasoning encompassing at least four dimensions, a concept mirrored in the four Aristotelian elements. This approach deciphers paradoxes such as Hamilton’s breakthrough, particle symmetries, optical chirality, and the irreversible flow of time, manifested in the Arrow of Time.
Drawing upon Noether’s Theorem, we know that all conservation laws stem from symmetry. However, preserving this symmetry in “linear” and “open” systems is an uphill task due to inadequate internal regulation of their disjointed ends. This calls for a “polycircular” system, typified by densely interconnected elements (Townsend et al, 2020) — akin to holograms where every fragment reflects the whole. See also: Enhanced Reasoning
In this context, it becomes apparent that the real fallacy lies in linear thinking, with its deep-seated ‘disconnect’. Alarmingly, the scientific method exacerbates such fallacies by rigidly stipulating that (i) all phenomena must be explained by some ‘open-ended’ “First Principles” (as if “second-principles” were less important and fundamental), and (ii) only phenomena which are reproducible and measurable hold merit. This outlook rejects anything that seems ‘inessential’, and/or cannot be measured or reproduced, labeling it as ‘non-existent’ — a stark misapplication of Occam’s Razor that hinders many from “connecting the dots” to perceive the grander scheme of things.
This misuse of Occam’s Razor springs from a limited understanding of “necessity”. The phrase — “Entities should not be multiplied without necessity” — loses its essence when “necessity” is confined to a myopic, pragmatic perspective that overlooks the importance of completing the loop. Consequently, it becomes a tool wielded by linear thinkers to mute the wise, echoing Lao Tzu’s insight: “Those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know.”
Science, even when it succeeds in ‘connecting the dots,’ falls short in tapping into ‘Eternal Truths,’ being held back by its lack of depth in interconnectedness. This leaves ‘scientific truths’ tentative, estranging us from the very essence of our existence — the unquantifiable and non-reproducible aspects that make Life Meaningful.
Could it then be possible that mysticism, with its expansive interconnectedness and dimensionality, promises a path way more rewarding than the constrained avenues of scientific method and linear reasoning?
„The general goal of mysticism is to achieve ever-increasing levels of awareness of the cosmos” Mysticism and Psychotherapy
„Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics.” (attributed to Albert Einstein)