# Mental certainty principle

Is the following philosophy in an almost formal nutshell? Consistent?

"The why invites for meta analysis, the why invites for an external explanation because the thing perceived in the laboratory or because of a model in itself is a reality but needs an external context to verify its truth"

Then one would ask, isn't this necessary ad infinitum? No because when the level of complexity raises it can describe structures of a sort and the amount of structures are practically not infinite however the imaginable amount of structures is and when calculating just that it shows that the calculations are without the order and hence exhausting something that can be predicted.

The Axiom of Choice says that one can choose any number in an infinity to express an infinity and indeed, one needs a structure an not an infinity because infinities in infinities still keep being infinities, however the order of infinities do determine if something fits because that is what we talk about. The non infinite distribution, the available ordinals.

Thus again, and somewhat adapted, if I ask why, I naturally need a meta view, perhaps know the order which indirectly makes it meta or imaginably above the perceived. The 'why' ignites this tendency, however I think it is less redundant to ask about what order or structure one talks, so that one allows for new fields to emerge and be attached (without formal proof (also because this leads to speculation on my side)).

So the begging question here is: are there contexts conceivable here that make my statements not true. This also invites the question of certain truths that are not breakable but only questionable in appearing in certain realms. (An order is not observable in the universe besides the mental plane however there is also no possibility to break it down without existential or autonomy arguments)

*~*Rating weight:

Logi has 0 replies.