*6.6. Experimental Metaphysics. Categories*

These considerations provide an occasion to say what our approach, in the 'language' of ontolons and epistemons, is *not.* It is not an 'experimental metaphysics' in the concept of Shimony and of Redhead [137]. Methods of valid argumen<sup>t</sup> in current philosophy still embody the tautological assumptions of classical, propositional logic and its notion of truth. Redhead's (well-intentioned) movement "from physics to metaphysics» moved further away, not towards, reality.

The metaphysical world-view that is implied by the Principle of Dynamic Opposition (PDO) is compatible with the 'metaphysical revision that has been engendered by quantum mechanics', in the phrase of Vlatko Vedral [138]. One does not have to have a prior 'orthodox' concept of reality in order to define the best possible active role for what is observed, namely, that dualities are present at all levels of reality, starting with that of the quantum field. The dualities in question have a kind of part-whole relation to the world, but one need not assume that at the end of this analysis, one will have captured all the essential aspects of the world. As noted above, one will not have, as a consequence, a 'Theory of Everything' (which was not an objective in the first place), but one will have a framework that can evolve in parallel with further development in the physical understanding of our universe. Our view is consistent with the work of Vedral.

Logic in Reality, as outlined in [1] includes a 'New Energy Ontology' which includes categories but redefines their characteristics. The absolute, binary concepts, exclusivity and exhaustivity are eliminated in favor of a dynamic relation between 'objects and forms' of thought. The role of such categories in ontology is essential in defining LIR as a conceptual structure that has additional explanatory power. In a categorial realist conception, as suggested by Thomasson [139], "providing a system of categories can be seen as a, or even *the* central task of metaphysics". We believe a robustly realist position is made more plausible by the principles of LIR, since they improve our ability to discern intrinsic divisions and redefine changes or movements in physical reality as the "entities" in the category of existence. For our purposes it is not necessary to decide for an ontological or metaphysical reading of the term 'category': both can be used as they complement one another.

## *6.7. The Ontological Priority of Ontolons*

In contrast to the concept of 'monads' (cf. Leibniz) the notion of ontolons as entities or forms of existence—'being in reality'—has received far less discussion. We propose ontolon as our basic term for the essences of beings-in-reality, for the *forms of existence* which assume a multiplicity of dynamic processes in the extant domain, including knowing. The epistemon, then, represents the internal semiotic structure of ontolons, their epistemic representation. Logic in Reality provides the framework for the description of both ontic and epistemic processes and their relations, united via the transcending cognitive logical operations involving potential and actual states in interaction. Taken to its logical (*sic*) conclusion, the notion of ontolon is better grounded in reality than that of monad. It can replace the term of monad and, eventually, that of the *Dasein* of Heidegger in a Philosophy in Reality in which the number of non-natural concepts are reduced to a minimum.
