A Challenge to Amaranthine Metaphysics

A Challenge to Amaranthine Metaphysics

by Dume Droven

An increasingly dominant school of thought among Whirling School philosophers is the Amaranth theory of metaphysics. Supposedly, by escaping the present "dream", one can become an Amaranth who can create their own dream universe. While this theory is interesting, I must contend that it has no more warrant than believing Masser is actually a large ball of cheese.

There are three main reasons to reject this theory of metaphysics. First, Amaranthine metaphysics is incoherent on grounds of relying on an infinite regress. Second, the assumption that our universe is a dream is unfounded. Third, the primary source for such an idea is untrustworthy.

The infinite regress challenge is one of the most difficult for Padomaic scholars to avoid. Amaranthine metaphysics, or at least one popular version of it, holds that the uppermost level of reality is a never ending series of dreams. Our universe came from a different dream, which came from a different dream, which came from a different dream, ad infinitum. The problem is that cycling through an infinity to a certain point is impossible.

Suppose one day you fell ill and went to a local apothecary for healing. The healer approached you and said "I'll get to you as quickly as possible. In the meantime, wait here." You promptly ask him how many patients he must go through to reach you. He answers "An infinity." Will the healer ever reach you? Of course not! Everytime he finishes with one patient, he will move onto another, but without making any progress. There will always be another patient before you. The same problem exists for the infinite past conception of Amaranthine metaphysics. There would always be another universe to cycle through prior to the creation of this one.

In sum, the Infinite Regress Argument could be shown as thus:

  1. If Amaranthine metaphysics requires an infinite regress, then it must be false.

  2. Amaranthine metaphysics requires an infinite regress.

  3. Therefore, Amaranthine metaphysics is false.

That is only the first difficulty the theory faces. Another is that calling the present universe a dream is not warranted. There are marked difference between reality and dreams. Dreams are fluid and governed entirely by narrative convention. Reality, the world we live in, has measurable laws that can be analyzed and counted on. They are breakable, but it would be incorrect to characterize them as fluid. For instance, no one can remain invisible forever outside of extraordinary circumstances. It is hypothetically possible to remain invisible forever, but realistically it cannot be done.

Another example is how dreams have no clear composition outside the story they are trying to tell. The desk in my dreams is not made of wood. It merely appears wooden for whatever purpose my mind has established. In contrast, the desk I wrote this paper on can be broken down and examined. The immensely small daedrons and aedrons can be witnessed interacting with a Micro-Perception spell. If this were a dream, surely the desk would exist merely as a conceptual construct. Why on Nirn would it break down into measurable and examinable pieces?

If that is not enough, the complexity of our universe's story hints that either a Dreamer's mind is incredibly powerful or our world is not a dream. Take the desk example once more. A possible response to the argument could be that the Dreamer's mind is trying to tell the story of me breaking down and examining my desk. However, at the same time, it must be telling the story of Daedric Princes dominating their realms, farmers growing crops, the cosmos turning, and any number of other stories happening in the universe. This is contrary to our common experience of dreams. Normally, our dreams cycle one story at a time. There are not any subplots, or strong narrative devices, for that matter. They are usually incoherent in nature, not structured.

While these examples are not decisive refutations of the world being a dream, they cast doubt on the probability of that being the case. I summarize this argument, dubbed the Counterintuitive Functionality Argument, thus:

  1. If the universe works contrary to the common experience of dreams, it is unlikely to be a dream.

  2. The universe works contrary to the common experience of dreams.

  3. Therefore, the universe is unlikely to be a dream.

By token of 3: If the universe is not a dream, the creator cannot be a Dreamer.

Finally, the most powerful evidence in favor of Amaranthine metaphysics is the literature found in books like the Anuad and the 36 Lessons of Vivec. Whether these books are myths or reliable historical documents is for another paper, but regardless of the case, the author is an unreliable witness. I am by no means arguing that the source of knowledge invalidates the knowledge itself. Rather, I am arguing that Vivec's credibility reduces the probability that he was telling the truth about his claims.

A few who know the history of Morrowind know the story of ALMSIVI, of their murder of Indoril Nerevar, and their assumption of God-like powers. Those same scholars also know that they lost their powers because of the Nerevarine's intervention. Some maintain that Vivec retained a form of divinity called CHIM, and has escaped to somewhere else. The dubious evidence for that claim aside, why should anyone trust the word of a being who murdered his close friend in the name of power and was insane enough to attempt to harness the power of a fallen god? Such a being is either malicious or insane. Either way, his testimony on mystical matters could simply be propaganda or the ravings of a lunatic. Neither should be taken seriously as a source of metaphysical insight.

This argument, henceforth called the Dubious Witness Argument, can be summarized thus:

  1. If a witness is malicious or insane, the witness' word cannot be trusted.

  2. Vivec was either malicious or insane.

  3. Therefore, Vivec's word cannot be trusted.

Scholars have long been too preoccupied with the ramblings of Third Era figures and fairy tales. It is time for metaphysics scholarship to loose itself from the shackles of tradition. All that is required for accurate knowledge is the rigorous thought of an analytical mind, not the nostalgia of ancient philosophies. A new paradigm of metaphysics is called for, and it cannot be Amaranthine in nature.