Subtractive derivation

Remove assumptions, do not multiply entities

Instead of deducing from a first substance taken as a premise, I start my subtractive derivation from the alleged impossibility of absolute nothingness. I then ask whether determination, difference, relation, manifestability, and minimal coherence can be removed without collapsing into indeterminacy.

I use a contrastive criterion: if the presence and absence of an alleged X can make no difference in any possible configuration, I contend that ‘X exists’ lacks determinate ontic content.

Ontological, not simply epistemic

When I say ‘recognizable in principle,’ I do not mean recognizable by human senses or instruments. I mean able to make a difference in some possible relational configuration. An event may be inaccessible to human observers and still establish real constraints. I do not equate the unobserved with the nonexistent.

Where the argument changes status

In edition 3.7 I make an important clarification: I defend the need for a manifest pole under the principle of operational determinacy. On this principle, a difference is determinate only where the contrast between its holding and not holding is operative in at least one possible register.

I explicitly acknowledge that this principle is not itself derived from the subtractive method. My necessity claim about Consciousness is therefore conditional upon this defended principle; it does not follow automatically from the argument about nothingness.