# One or Many
Some philosophers are monists, arguing that the world must be a unity, one unchanging thing, and that all the multiplicity and change that we see is mere [illusion](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/illusionism.html).
Some are [dualists](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/dualisms/), puzzled how the immaterial One (usually Mind or the Ideal) can possibly interact with the material Many (the Body or the World). There are other kinds of dualists, but the idealism/materialism divide has a long history in philosophy under dozens of different names through the ages.
Monists generally [reduce](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/reductionism.html) the physical world to the ideal, or vice versa, or argued that the ideal and physical worlds were somehow both something else - a "neutral monism.". But their underlying dualism is inescapable.
Many philosophers prefer triads, triplicities, or trinities as their fundamental structures, and in these we may find the most sensible way to divide the world as we know it into “worlds,” realms, or orders.
Those who divide their philosophy into four usually arrange it two by two (Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Derrida - who did it in jest, and against Christian trinitues). There are a few who think a pentad has explanatory power. Another handful look to the mystical seven (the number of planets and thus days of the week) for understanding. Since the Pythagoreans drew their triangular diagram of the tetractus, ten has been a divine number for some. Aristotle found ten categories. The neo-Platonist Kabalists have ten sephiroth. In string theory, there are ten dimensions reflecting the components of Einstein’s general relativity equations.
The most important philosopher since Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, structured his architectonic into twelve categories, arranged four by three. We will scrutinize these architectures to see if the thinkers divide their worlds the same way, whatever they call their divisions. There is a surprising amount of agreement among them, considering their disagreements on terminology.
One of the "founders" of quantum mechanics. [Niels Bohr](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bohr/), saw the [wave-particle dual nature](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/physics/wave-particle_duality.html) of quantum mechanics as connected to many other philosophical dualisms. We have compiled a semi-chronological list of various philosophical terms used through the ages that seem highly correlated with the fundamental ideal-material duality.
Over the centuries many philosophers have seen a fundamental dualism. Most have invented their own names for this dualism. Not all have meant the very same things, but the great similarities allow us to collect all these dualisms into a quasi-chronological table, where similarities and slight differences become more clear.
Of course many have claimed to be monists. "All is One," they said, as they generally reduced the physical world to the ideal, or vice versa, or argued that the ideal and physical worlds were somehow both something else. But their underlying dualism was inescapable.
Many philosophers saw the need for the two sides to work together.
[Immanuel Kant](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kant/) wrote
> _Gedanken ohne Inhalt sind leer.
> Anschauungen ohne Begriffe sind blind._
[Charles Sanders Peirce](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/peirce/) rewrote it as
> If Materialism without Idealism is blind,
> Idealism without Materialism is void.
With a nod to Kant and Peirce, we can say
> Concepts without Percepts are empty.
> Percepts without Concepts are blind.
And although [Freedom](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom) and [Values](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/value) are not a Dualism, they too require one another and we can observe
> Freedom without Values is Absurd (_Continental Existentialism_).
> Values without Freedom are Worthless (_British Utilitarianism_).
| | |
|---|---|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[The ONE](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[The MANY](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Monism](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Pluralism](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[IDEALISM](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[MATERIALISM](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Being](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Becoming](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Necessity](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Contingency](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Plato's Divided Line](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)| |
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Theories (noesis) Hypotheses (dianoia)](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Techniques (pistis) Stories (eikasia)](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Eternal](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Ephemeral](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[ESSENCE](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[EXISTENCE](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Universals](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Accidentals](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/) / [Particulars](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Aristotle's Four Causes](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)| |
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Final Cause Formal Cause](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Efficient Cause Material Cause](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Realism](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Nominalism](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Intelligible](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Sensible](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Form](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Content](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[General](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Particular](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Absolute](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Relative](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Abstract](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Concrete](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[RATIONALISM](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[EMPIRICISM](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[MIND](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[BODY](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[_a priori_](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[_a posteriori_](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)__[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)__|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Certainty](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Probability](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Intellect](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Tabula Rasa](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Innate](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Learned](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Nature](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Nurture](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Analytic](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Synthetic](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Kant's Transcendental Critique](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)| |
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Noumena](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Phenomena](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Concepts/Thoughts](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Percepts/Senses](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Freedom](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Law](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Concept](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Object](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Dialectical IDEALISM](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Dialectical MATERIALISM](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Superstructure](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Base](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Romanticism](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Positivism](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Transcendentalism](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Pragmatism](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Supernaturalism](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Naturalism](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Phenomenology](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Behaviorism/Existentialism](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Linguistic Analysis](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)| |
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Ideal Language](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Ordinary Language](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Intension](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Extension](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Semantic](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Pragmatic](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Autonomy](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Mimesis](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Deduction](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Induction](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Theory](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Experiment](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Consistency](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Correspondence](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Quantum Complementarity](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)| |
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[WAVE](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[PARTICLE](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Possible](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Actual](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
|[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[Thought](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|[Action](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)[](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/)|
After [dualisms](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/dualisms/), the next most popular philosophical architectonic structures are triads, triplicities, or trinities.
Some philosophers describe their triads as three "worlds," just as dualism is often described in terms of an Ideal World and a Material World. The deep philosophical (and scientific) question is - do these divisions "carve Nature at the joints," as Plato put it in the _Phaedrus_, (265e)?
We analyze examples, and find that the three worlds are most often simply the canonical Ideal/Material dualism with an interpolated third world corresponding to a human world (or more broadly, the biological world), with its obvious connection to the world of "subjective?" ideas above and the "objective" material world below.
[Gottlob Frege](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/frege/)'s Three Realms
- An External Realm of Public Physical Things and Events
- An Internal Subjective Realm of Private Thoughts
- An "Objective" Platonic Realm of Ideal "Senses" (to which sentences refer, providing their meaning)
[Karl Popper](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/)'s Three Worlds (clearly influenced by Frege)
- World I - "the realm of physical things and processes"
- World II - "the realm of subjective human experience"
- World III - "the realm of culture and objective knowledge" - of human artifacts (our [Sum](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/sum/))
[Charles Sanders Peirce](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/peirce/)'s Three Universes of Experience. Peirce's first and third worlds are both immaterial (our [Sum](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/sum/)), with the material world in the middle. So a better triad would have had Signs in the middle as human inventions mediating between the ideal and the material. Peirce's triad of Objects - Percepts - Concepts is in the correct order.
- Firstness - Ideas
- Secondness - Things
- Thirdness - Signs.
The [Information Philosopher](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/doyle/)'s Three levels of Information Emergence (seen in our tri-color I-Phi logo)
- The Physical/Material (green) - [Ilya Prigogine](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/prigogine/)'s "order out of chaos," when the matter in the universe forms information structures
- The Biological/Material (red) - [Erwin Schrödinger](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/schrodinger/)'s "order out of order," when the material information structures form teleonomic self-replicating biological information structures
- The Mental/Immaterial (blue) - [Bob Doyle](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/doyle/)'s abstract "information out of order," when organisms with minds process and externalize information, communicating it to other minds and storing it in the environment
[Bob Doyle](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/doyle/)'s Three Sources that "Ground" Authoritative Knowledge
- The Traditional - Knowledge is inherited, handed down, discovered in stories (_mythos_) from the great thinkers of the past (compare Frege's "Objective" Platonic Realm of Ideal "Senses" to which sentences "refer," providing their meaning)
- The Modern - Knowledge is grounded by Reason, by providing a rational account (_logos_) of how things are, augmented by modern empirical science since the Enlightenment
- The Post-Modern - all cultural knowledge is "relative" to conventions in the culture (_nomos_) that invents them.
For _conservative_ post-moderns, science can establish knowledge about an objective external world.
For _radical_ post-moderns, "anything goes" (Feyerabend), even science "invents/creates reality." There are no grounds/foundations for knowledge, for "justified true beliefs."
[Terrence Deacon](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/)'s three kinds of dynamics.
- Homeodynamic- "Any dynamic process that spontaneously reduces a system's constraints to their minimum and thus more evenly distributes system properties across space and time. The second law of thermodynamics describes the paradigm case" (thus states of thermodynamic equilibrium, with maximal disorder and with minimal information? If so, "thermodynamic" might be a better term?)
- Morphodynamic - "Dynamical organization exhibiting the tendency to become spontaneously more organized and orderly over time due to constant perturbation, but without the extrinsic imposition of influences that specifically impose that regularity" (thus both Prigogine's "order out of chaos" and Schrödinger's "order out of order" are morphodynamic; note that both of these are "negentropic")
- Teleodynamic - "A form of dynamical organization exhibiting end-directedness and consequence-organized features that is constituted by the co-creation, complementary constraint, and reciprocal synergy of two or more strongly coupled morphodynamic processes" (end-directedness is usually called "teleonomic")
[Merlin Donald](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/donald/)'s levels of Culture Emergence.
- Mimetic: the "copycat" or "monkey see, monkey do" ability of primates facilitated transfer of learning, ritual
- Mythic: language in humans, mental/brain development is influenced by social network of speakers generating symbols for ideas
- Informatic: External storage of knowledge - writing, printing, computers, Internet
## Types of Triads
- Levels: Material - Biological/Human - Ideal (physis - bios/nomos - logos)
- Inner Levels: Body - Mind/Brain - Spirit
- Plato: Truth - Goodness - Beauty
- Aristotle/Kant: Epistemology - Ethics - Aesthetics
- Number: One - Two/Many - All (unity - duality/plurality - totality)
- Person: I - You - We (self - other - society/community)
- Truth: Correspondence - Coherence - Consistency (empirical - conventional/pragmatic - logical)
- Time: Past - Present - Future
- Family: Father - Mother - Son
- Dialectic: Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis (new higher thesis)
- Hume's Relations: Similarity - Contiguity - Causality (form - space - time)
- Medieval Trivium: Grammar - Rhetoric - Logic
- Rhetoric: Simile - Metonym - Metaphor
- Peirce: Objects - Percepts - Concepts
- Peirce's Semiotics: Icon - Index - Symbol
- Peirce's Symbol: Ground - Object - Interpretant
- Peirce's Science: Abduction (hypothesis) - Induction - Deduction
- Grounds: Tradition - Modern - Postmodern
- Grounds: Mythos-Logos-Nomos
- Greek literature: Epic (Homer/Hesiod) - Lyric (Sappho/Pindar) - Dramatic (Euripides)
- Beliefs: Naturalism - Humanism - Spiritualism (supernatural/superhuman)
- Matter: Solid - Liquid - Gas (earth - water - air)
- Time: Begin - Middle - End (archos - physis/nomos - telos)
- Journey: Eden - Fall - Atonement (home - travels - homecoming)
- Life: Birth - Life - Death
## A Few Tetrads
- Classical Materialism: Earth - Water - Air - Fire (anticipating today's states of matter solid - liquid - gas - plasma)
- Plato's Divided Line: Stories - Techniques - Hypotheses - Theories (_eikasia - pistis - dianoia - noesis_)
- Aristotle's Causes: Material cause - Efficient cause - Formal cause - Final cause
(He considered [chance](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/chance/) to be a possible _fifth_ cause.)
- Graeco-Roman Four Temperaments (or humors): Choleric (yellow bile), Melancholic (black bile), Sanguine (blood), and Phlegmatic (phlegm)
- Medieval cosmology: Earth (below us) - Water (with us) - Air (above us) - Stars (beyond us)
- The medieval scholastic Quadrivium: Math - Geometry - Music - Astronomy (number - space - time - motion)
- Schopenhauer's Fourfold Root of Sufficient Reason
- Heidegger's _Geviert_ (2x2): Earth - Mortals - Heavens - Gods
- Derrida's _Jeu des Cartes_
Those who divide their philosophy into four usually arrange it two by two (Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Derrida - in jest). There are a few who think a pentad has explanatory power. Another handful look to the mystical seven (the number of planets and thus days) for understanding.
Since the Pythagoreans drew their triangular diagram of the tetractus, ten has been a divine number for some. Aristotle found ten categories. The neo-Platonist Kabalists have ten sephiroth.
The most important philosopher since Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, structured his architectonic into twelve categories, arranged four by three.
We will scrutinize these architectures to see if the various thinkers divide their worlds the same way, whatever they call their divisions. We'll see that there is a surprising amount of agreement among them, especially considering their disagreements on terminology.