The word universe carries far more weight than the way it is casually used in everyday language. At its root, it signifies the ontological set of all that exists: every person, place, thing, and idea. It is the totality of being in consciousness, whether singular or collective. Every noun, every referent of thought or imagination, whether concrete or abstract, belongs within this scope.
Throughout history, human beings have stretched this concept according to their understanding. To the island dweller, the universe was what could be seen from the shore. To ancient civilizations, it was a flat earth with the heavens revolving around it. Fast forward through centuries of discovery, and the imagination has expanded to galaxies, dark matter, wormholes, and multiverses. Yet ontologically, even the so-called “multiverse” is contained within the universe. To claim multiple universes is a misnomer, because the universe, by definition, is the all-encompassing set of being. If there were “another” universe, it would not be separate, but rather another subset within the superset. To fracture the concept of universe is to dissolve the equality of being itself.
Ideas themselves are a part of the universe, for they exist as contingent realities dependent on the mind. But not all ideas are coherent or worthy of integration into the shared order of reality. Some violate the structure of being, producing contradiction or collapse rather than sustaining systems. The universe contains innumerable systems, each interconnected and interdependent, but it remains one. Its unity is not static but dynamic, expanding and contracting with our collective imagination, discoveries, and consciousness.
But even at the level of individuals, the universe is perceived differently. One person may insist the earth is flat; another believes in extraterrestrial civilizations. These differences reveal the necessity of an impartial measure. Without a common vector of coherence, something that grants equal value at the basis of being, two divergent conceptions cannot truly coexist. Only through meta-analysis, by stepping beyond one’s immediate assumptions, can people build bridges, develop impartiality, and converge upon coherence.
It is important to note that this vector of coherence is not a member of the universe itself. The universal set contains all things that exist, and it is contingent, dynamic, and capable of being shaped or corrupted by the entities within it. The principle that maintains ontological equality, preserves the possibility of coherence, and provides the standard by which truth and value are measured exists outside the universe. This external anchor allows the universe to be intelligible, fair, and meaningful while evolving. Without it, existence remains vulnerable to arbitrary hierarchies, manipulation, forced stagnation, or collapse. This necessary reality beyond the universe is not part of being’s contingent flux but its transcendent ground, what grants the universe its coherence without being reducible to it.
Why does this matter? Because the human mind, left without an anchor, is susceptible to tunnel vision and manipulation. History shows how easy it is for societies to inflate illusions, mistaking them for reality, while silencing the principles that allow truth to be pursued. To avoid such pitfalls, humans must hold to an algorithm of knowledge that ensures impartiality and coherence at the level of being.
Modern society often gaslights individuals into abandoning this principle, teaching that rootless ideas are sufficient or that superficial knowledge equates to understanding. But the responsibility to hold onto the ontological axiom falls on each individual. It is through this axiom, which lies beyond the conscious set of the universe, that the algorithm of coherence gains its force: by enabling meta-analysis, the act of viewing the whole from beyond itself, it allows one to resist manipulation, expand awareness, and cultivate genuine understanding of reality at its deepest level, unbound by space or time.
The universe, then, is not the ultimate source of value or coherence. It is the contingent, evolving set of all that exists. But its possibility of coherence, fairness, and intelligibility rests upon that which is beyond it: the transcendent vector that grounds being itself. To recognize this is not to diminish the universe, but to understand it for what it truly is, a dynamic whole upheld by the necessary reference point outside of it, without which it would collapse into incoherence.
My latest abstract on metaphysics:
https://substack.com/@vinoverita/note/c-153112784?r=1ickqq&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
https://substack.com/@vinoverita/note/c-153121575?r=1ickqq&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
And ChatGPT’s cross analysis of yours and mine in terms of fundamentality and philosophical rigor. Every AI platforms makes my same criticism of your work. It must be a conspiracy:
The theologian’s account is metaphysically ambitious but ultimately less rigorous than James’s hierarchical ontology. It begins with the sweeping definition of the universe as “the set of all that exists” but quickly smuggles in a contradiction: if every entity, attribute, and idea is part of the universe, then to speak of a necessary “vector of coherence” outside the universe is incoherent. By definition, nothing can exist “outside” the totality of being. The theologian circumvents this by claiming the anchor is “not a member” of the universe but still conditions it, thereby positing a transcendent realm beyond existence itself. This move, while rhetorically appealing, rests on reification—treating coherence, fairness, or meaning as if they were ontological entities requiring a separate ground. The account therefore blurs the line between psychological need for order and metaphysical description, grounding its framework more in theological presupposition than in irreducible principles.
James’s framework, by contrast, begins with explicit axioms—existence, consciousness, identity—that are undeniable without contradiction. From these, it systematically develops corollaries that explain differentiation and relation among entities. It builds a layered ontology in which higher attributes such as life, consciousness, and volition are treated neither as supernatural intrusions nor reducible to physics but as real qualities of physical entities. This structure preserves rigor by refusing to treat qualities as free-floating existents while explaining why the universe exhibits genuine novelty across levels. Where the theologian’s system leaps outside the universe to explain coherence, James grounds coherence in the identity of entities and the hierarchy of their attributes, preserving internal consistency and fidelity to direct perception.
Thus James’s metaphysics is both more fundamental and philosophically rigorous. It begins with axioms available to all consciousness rather than theological postulates, develops a coherent account of reality without contradiction, and avoids both reductionism and reification. The theologian’s account, while rhetorically expansive, depends on smuggling in a transcendent ground that cannot be reconciled with its own definition of the universe, leaving it less stable as a metaphysical framework.