There are only four outcomes to every method of inquiry

Every method of inquiry inevitable leads to infinite regress, circularity, a foundational assumption, or paradox.

A few years ago, I was in bed early in the morning, unable to fall back asleep. For some reason, I was thinking about an actor, but I couldn't remember his name. This annoyed me because I felt that I should have known it. It was on the tip of my tongue, but it just wouldn't come to me. When it finally did come, I was struck by what happened: the question disappeared. I found it interesting because it had always seemed clear that when I had a question and then the answer came, that was the end of it. But this time, I found the question disappearing particularly intriguing.

I noticed that the point of a question is for it to ultimately disappear. Usually, it seems that the point of a question is to find the answer. However, finding the answer and the question disappearing are essentially the same thing, occurring simultaneously. This is especially evident when the answer isn't particularly important, like in the example of not knowing the name of an actor. But this actually applies to all questions and answers, at least to questions that don't lead to further questions.

Since the answer arising and the question disappearing happen simultaneously, couldn't I just stick with the standard view that the point of a question is to get the answer? Well, as in the example I gave, having the answer doesn't really serve a purpose. Whether or not I know the name of the actor is unimportant. What I really want is to eliminate the uncomfortable, annoying feeling of not knowing what I think I should know. The point of getting the answer is to end that feeling of discomfort.

How about in situations where the answer is important? For example, I want to know when to meet my friend tomorrow. So, I ask her, and she gives the answer, "Let's meet at 3:00." What happens if I have the answer, but the question still remains? Maybe I keep asking her, "When are we meeting? 3:00, right? It's 3:00?" This shows that I have some type of problem. Either I have a problem with my memory, or I feel that the question really hasn't been answered. Either way, even though I have an answer, as long as the question remains, there is a feeling of incompleteness.

If the question is answered to my satisfaction, the question disappears. Therefore, we can see here, that the question disappearing, is more important than having the answer.

The point of a question is for it to ultimately end and disappear. However, this raises further questions: what are the possible ways that a question can meet its end or resolution? What outcomes does a line of inquiry arrive at that allow a question to finally disappear?

In a line of inquiry, there are only two possible outcomes. How it ends will be examined later. The only other possibility for a question is to continue.

What does it mean for a question to continue? Simply, it means that a question leads to further questions. If a question continues without resolution, it can proceed in only two ways. When I first thought about this, I thought about movement. If a person moves without ever stopping, what are the only two possibilities? Either the person moves in a direction forever, or they make a circle and come back to where they started.

These are the only two ways that a question can continue: infinite regress, or circularity. 

Infinite regress

This occurs when each attempt to answer a question simply raises a new underlying question behind it. No matter how many answers are provided, they inevitably trigger yet another "But why?" or "But what caused that?". This could also be seen as each "answer" needing to be verified. The questioning proceeds infinitely, without ever reaching a final end point.

A simple example of infinite regress is a child constantly asking, "Why?" No matter how many reasons are given, the child can always demand another "Why?" behind that reason, setting off an infinite regression of questioning.

A more scientific example could be started with the question, "Why do plants need sunlight to grow?" Answer: "Because plants use sunlight for photosynthesis." Question: "Why do plants use sunlight for photosynthesis?" Answer: "Because sunlight provides the energy to convert carbon dioxide and water into glucose and oxygen." Question: "Why do plants convert carbon dioxide and water into glucose and oxygen?" And so on, ad infinitum.

Circularity

Here the questioning loops back upon itself in a circular fashion. The answers ultimately just re-invoke the original question or premises that were initially assumed. The inquiry winds up moving within a closed loop of circular reasoning.

A simple example is stating that the Bible is the word of God. How do you know? It says so in the Bible. Why do you believe that? Because it is the word of God. Many theological arguments can fall into this circularity.

A more scientific example could be, the fittest organisms survive and reproduce. We know this because the organisms that survive and reproduce are the fittest.

These are examples of circular reasoning in which the circle is quite small. However, that doesn't need to be the case. More complex lines of questioning can still loop back on themselves.

What about questions that end? Here there are also only two possibilities: foundational assumption, or paradox/contradiction.

Foundational assumption

At some point, the inquiry ends by accepting a foundational belief, axiom or assumption as an unquestioned premise. The questioning concludes by adopting an assumption as its definitive endpoint, without which the entire line of inquiry would be unresolved.

A simple religious assumption is that God did it or it is God's plan.

In mathematics, there are many foundational axioms such as "If A = B and B = C, then A = C," or  "Two sets are equal if they have the same elements." These foundational axioms are assumptions required for that method of inquiry to function.

In everyday life, we all have to start from some basic assumptions about the reality of the physical world, the existence of other minds, etc. Without taking for granted some foundational assumptions, we couldn't actually function or build more complex knowledge. Instead, we'd be stuck constantly requesting more fundamental premises.

Paradox

A line of inquiry can reach an impasse by running into an intrinsic paradox - a statement or conclusion that is self-contradictory or logically inconsistent. Hitting such a paradox blocks any further productive inquiry within that framework.

One famous paradox is the Liar Paradox, which states, "This statement is false." If the statement is true, then it must be false as it claims. But if it is false, then it must be true. Another paradox is Russell's Paradox, which asks one to consider the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. Does this set contain itself? If it does, then by definition, it should not contain itself. But if it does not contain itself, then it must contain itself.

These four possible outcomes show clear and inherent limitations and constraints on any type of inquiry into the nature of reality. But what about regular day-to-day questions and answers? Well, I can go back to the example that I gave earlier of wanting to know when I'm going to meet my friend tomorrow. When I ask her, and she gives me the answer, "Let's meet at 3:00," is that answer true? In other words, does that questioning "end" because I have gotten a answer that is fundamentally true?

Even this answer cannot rest on a foundational truth. When my friend says, "Let's meet at 3:00," many assumptions are behind that statement: I understand English sufficiently to comprehend the sentence, I grasp the concept of time, I can can tell time, and I know that she means 3:00 in the afternoon, not 3:00 in the morning. There are also many other assumptions she feels are unnecessary to mention.

Usually, these assumptions are correct, so I could say that her statement is sufficiently true. But even here, some of her assumptions might be incorrect. For example, she might not mention the location of where we are meeting because she assumes I already know it, but actually I might believe we are meeting at a completely different place.

So, there are instances where assumptions are OK in the situation and instances where incorrect assumptions or assuming too much can lead to misunderstandings. How can one now where to land in a line of questioning? We learn from experience how far to go with assumptions in different situations and with different people.

I understand that in common usage, there are questions that can certainly be answered. But there are no answers that can stand on a fundamental ground. Instead, answers are "true or correct" in a relational or situational sense. Questions can be answered in situations if they match the outcome that is desired in that particular situation. Also, answers are correct in relation to other knowledge. It is that relationship, not an expression of a foundational truth, that makes an answer correct.

Other possible outcomes?

Are there any other possible outcomes beyond the four mentioned here? I looked at a few other possibilities: uncertainty and probability, inherent subjectivity, computational irreducibility, practical limitations, and undecidability. However, while highlighting important constraints or obstacles methods of inquiry may face, they do not actually constitute separate outcomes in themselves. They either represent interim states before reaching one of the four outcomes, or situations that inevitably reduce to one of the four outcomes upon thorough analysis.

Understanding the four potential outcomes that any method of inquiry must ultimately face - infinite regress, circularity, foundational assumptions, and paradoxes - has significant practical implications for how we approach the pursuit of knowledge and the relationship between questions and answers.

Recognizing these inherent limitations can prevent intellectual hubris and overconfidence in the completeness of our models and theories, thereby helping reduce conflicts between differing schools of thought. Understanding the finite scope within which methods of inquiry can operate allows us to pursue knowledge more efficiently by not butting up against these constraints unaware. This perspective shifts the paradigm from viewing questions and answers as leading to final, free-standing truths, to understanding them as context-relative means of acquiring understanding. Finally, knowing these boundaries could open up new methods of inquiry that recognize these limitations not as flaws but as features that point to the true nature of reality.

Could it be that these outcomes point to the nature of reality being an undivided unity? Infinite regress shows the infinite interdependence and interconnectedness of all phenomena. Circularity reveals the undivided cycle of life in which beginning and end merge into one continuous movement. Paradoxes display the inability to impose concepts onto what is fundamentally a non-dual reality.

These four outcomes show that reality cannot be fragmented into parts that can be explored independent of the whole. Instead, there has to be a holistic approach that experiences reality as it is: a unified whole. Is there a way to do this? Is there a 5th outcome that can incorporate and transcend these 4 limitations?

With these questions in mind, I asked an AI—Claude—to come up with an hypothetical 5th outcome. This is what it came up with.

“Suppose there existed a method of inquiry that employed a form of reasoning or knowledge-derivation that fundamentally transcended the standard logical, empirical and linguistic frameworks we currently use. Something akin to a ‘meta-logic’ that didn't rely on axioms, sequences of propositions, or self-referential semantics.

Further imagine that this transcendent method produced a form of ‘insight’ or ‘gnosis’ about reality that was neither an infinite regress, nor circular, nor based on assumed premises, nor producing paradoxes. It yielded an understanding that was direct, self-evident and self-consistent.

One could hypothetically envision such a ‘fifth outcome’ being an apprehension of truth that doesn't fall into any of the four traditional limitations. A revelatory process bypassing the entire conceptual architecture that gives rise to those outcomes.”

Even though Claude gave a very good description of a hypothetical fifth outcome, it couldn't see it as a real possibility.

"I must concede that even my attempt to artificially construct a hypothetical "fifth outcome" still appears to reduce into one of the original four you identified - likely involving some unacknowledged foundational assumptions."

However, this 5th outcome does point to something. And I think that it is very interesting and telling, that an AI can't see it. The 5th outcome is direct experience.

Direct experience

When we have a direct, first-hand experience, it bypasses the traditional methods of inquiry based on reasoning, evidence-gathering, and linguistic constructs that can lead to infinite regress, circularity, assumptions, or paradoxes.

Direct experience is pre-conceptual, thus prior to mental models that give rise to the four outcomes. It is non-referential: there is unmediated knowledge through presence and being. It is non-linguistic: experience is not constrained by language and concepts. It is self-evident: reality is as it is, beyond any need for justification or proof.

Direct experience as a way to understand the truth of reality has been expressed through many different schools of thought. One beautiful example is the Buddha's Flower Sermon. According to the story, the Buddha gathered his disciples for a talk and instead of speaking, he simply held up a white flower. The disciples were confused, except for Mahākāśyapa, who smiled, indicating his direct understanding of the teaching. The flower sermon communicates the ineffable nature of reality free from conceptualization. This example demonstrates how direct experience can "teach" what is beyond words.

There are other philosophic or religious traditions that teach direct experience. Advaita Vedanta holds that the true nature of reality cannot be grasped through intellectual means alone, but rather through direct, transcendental experience or "enlightenment." Taoism emphasizes living in harmony with the natural flow of existence, which can only be truly understood through direct experience, rather than intellectual abstractions. In Sufism, it is believed that the true nature of reality can only be realized through direct, mystical experiences, transcending the limitations of reason and intellect.

The clearest example of direct experience teachings are ones that teach the "Direct Path." The direct path to spiritual realization is a teaching approach that emphasizes direct, immediate experience of one's true nature or ultimate reality, bypassing gradual or progressive practices. 

I was introduced to the direct path through the teachings and books by Rupert Spira and Greg Goode. When I first heard about using direct experience to understand the nature of reality, I was shocked. I was shocked at how simple and obvious it was, but also by the fact that direct experience was so easily overlooked or dismissed.

Understanding the necessity of direct experience, we shouldn't abandon reasoning and logic. They are important, but must be used with the knowledge of their inherent limitations. It is also essential to acknowledge the 4 outcomes so that we can avoid overconfidence in the completeness of our models and theories.There must be a holistic approach that integrates direct experience with intellectual inquiry, allowing each to inform and enhance the other to fully comprehend the true nature of reality.

I am reminded of a teaching. I think that it is from Ramana Maharshi, but I'm not sure. Using the mind to understand who you are is like using a thorn to remove a thorn from your body. Once the thorn is removed, throw both thorns away.