Abstract
This paper presents A+theism v3, a systematic framework unifying ontology, cosmology, and moral theory under the concept of existential tension. Three arguments against materialism are advanced, followed by a positive alternative grounded in process ontology, and a novel moral system centered on psychological burden as the unit of ethical analysis.
- Part I
Part I challenges materialism on three fronts. The Modal Grounding Argument holds that qualia cannot emerge from a substrate that contains no potential for them — materialism conjures experience from a foundation that explicitly excludes it. The Darwinian Self-Refutation shows that causally inert epiphenomenal qualia could not survive natural selection; their existence implies causal reality irreducible to physical description. The Abiogenesis Double Standard identifies special pleading: materialists invoke vast probabilistic possibility-space to naturalize life from non-life, yet deny the same reasoning when applied to non-material continuity of consciousness.
- Part II
Part II proposes that reality is grounded in a primordial substrate of possibility under tension. Only tensions with dream-quality — an intrinsic capacity to enter experiential context — stabilize into persistent structure; the rest collapse, consistent with quantum vacuum dynamics. The collective unconscious serves as the passive carrier substrate; individual consciousness emerges from it as an active individuation capable of agency. Maximum individuations are identified as Gods. A cosmological argument follows: the universe’s observed flatness at critical density is best explained by a substrate with intrinsic directional tension toward experiential actualization, dissolving the infinite regress of standard inflationary cosmology.
- Part III
Part III introduces Moral Burden Realism. Evil is decomposed into three nodes: generating burden, externalizing it onto others, and collapsing under accumulated shadow material. Current justice systems punish only the third node — the symptom carrier — while upstream burden producers go unaccountable, explaining recidivism and the inverse correlation between penal harshness and social wellbeing. A commons-based liability model is proposed: demonstrable release of burden into a
shared psychological environment constitutes harm, independent of traceable individual causation. This framework yields a precise account of Hitler as maximum evil — not a generator of burden but the architect of an industrialized externalization system of categorically distinct moral magnitude.
Mirrors to the Document:
https://philpapers.org/rec/PRCMWM
https://www.mina-nobias.net/Files/AplusTheism_v3/MwithM/Metaphysics_with_Mina_2026-06-13.pdf
Leave a Reply