I'm think the lesson you give doesn't square with quantum physics, or with Wittenstein's word games. Regarding polytheism, which current cultures are polytheistic? I recommend you explore Iain McGilchrist's The Matter With Things.
The unpredictability of quantum events doesn’t establish multiple truths, nor does it undermine the necessity of a single, objective ontological ground. Quantum mechanics describes limits on measurement and predictability within certain domains of physical behavior, not limits on reality itself. The entire mathematical framework of quantum physics presupposes a stable, coherent order: fixed constants, conserved quantities, and a unifying mathematical structure that makes predictions, experiments, and interpretations possible.
If reality were genuinely plural at the level of fundamental truth, if multiple, incompatible ontologies were simultaneously “true,” no physics would exist. You couldn’t write a wave function, define a Hilbert space, or apply a symmetry principle. Chaos isn’t a foundation, it’s an expression of ignorance. Because uncertainty in behavior is not multiplicity in being. The essay addresses ontology, the level beneath probabilistic models and measurement constraints.
As for Wittgenstein’s language games, his point concerns human usage,not metaphysics. Words shift, experiences differ, interpretations vary, but their very ability to vary depends on a shared, stable world that anchors reference. Language games can only function because something objective stands beneath them. If foundational truth were multiple, communication would disintegrate. No two people could ever point to the same referent.
The existence of differing language games presupposes objectivity, not the opposite.
My use of the term “polytheism” isn’t restricted to ancient religious systems, but to answer your question though, India’s Hindu traditions are the most recognizable modern example of explicit polytheism, with the social caste system historically intertwined with its cosmology. However, I’m aiming at something far broader. Polytheism in this essay refers to any worldview that treats ultimate truth as fractured, multiple, or dependent on perspective, even if it denies “gods” entirely. Modern relativism, postmodernism, ideological tribalism, and systems where narrative or power become the de-facto “gods” are simply contemporary manifestations of the same epistemic structure where multiple competing authorities, none transcendent, none grounding the others, demand that objectivity be reduced to narrative so that competing powers can compete for control.
Lastly, thanks again for the McGilchrist recommendation. His work is valuable for understanding how the hemispheres process reality, but my argument concerns what makes any processing possible at all, that the ontological ground that must be singular, coherent, and independent for perception, physics, language, and consciousness to function in the first place.
I'm think the lesson you give doesn't square with quantum physics, or with Wittenstein's word games. Regarding polytheism, which current cultures are polytheistic? I recommend you explore Iain McGilchrist's The Matter With Things.
The unpredictability of quantum events doesn’t establish multiple truths, nor does it undermine the necessity of a single, objective ontological ground. Quantum mechanics describes limits on measurement and predictability within certain domains of physical behavior, not limits on reality itself. The entire mathematical framework of quantum physics presupposes a stable, coherent order: fixed constants, conserved quantities, and a unifying mathematical structure that makes predictions, experiments, and interpretations possible.
If reality were genuinely plural at the level of fundamental truth, if multiple, incompatible ontologies were simultaneously “true,” no physics would exist. You couldn’t write a wave function, define a Hilbert space, or apply a symmetry principle. Chaos isn’t a foundation, it’s an expression of ignorance. Because uncertainty in behavior is not multiplicity in being. The essay addresses ontology, the level beneath probabilistic models and measurement constraints.
As for Wittgenstein’s language games, his point concerns human usage,not metaphysics. Words shift, experiences differ, interpretations vary, but their very ability to vary depends on a shared, stable world that anchors reference. Language games can only function because something objective stands beneath them. If foundational truth were multiple, communication would disintegrate. No two people could ever point to the same referent.
The existence of differing language games presupposes objectivity, not the opposite.
My use of the term “polytheism” isn’t restricted to ancient religious systems, but to answer your question though, India’s Hindu traditions are the most recognizable modern example of explicit polytheism, with the social caste system historically intertwined with its cosmology. However, I’m aiming at something far broader. Polytheism in this essay refers to any worldview that treats ultimate truth as fractured, multiple, or dependent on perspective, even if it denies “gods” entirely. Modern relativism, postmodernism, ideological tribalism, and systems where narrative or power become the de-facto “gods” are simply contemporary manifestations of the same epistemic structure where multiple competing authorities, none transcendent, none grounding the others, demand that objectivity be reduced to narrative so that competing powers can compete for control.
Lastly, thanks again for the McGilchrist recommendation. His work is valuable for understanding how the hemispheres process reality, but my argument concerns what makes any processing possible at all, that the ontological ground that must be singular, coherent, and independent for perception, physics, language, and consciousness to function in the first place.
---
Thank you for clarification, I learn a lot from comments and replies. Your articles are worth saving!
You’re welcome, and thank you for commenting!