Inhalt
Aktueller Ordner:
/modal15eng.tex
% Options for packages loaded elsewhere
\PassOptionsToPackage{unicode}{hyperref}
\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\PassOptionsToPackage{dvipsnames,svgnames,x11names}{xcolor}
\documentclass[
ngerman,
11pt,
]{article}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage[margin=2.5cm]{geometry}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{-\maxdimen} % remove section numbering
\usepackage{iftex}
\ifPDFTeX
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{textcomp} % provide euro and other symbols
\else % if luatex or xetex
\usepackage{unicode-math} % this also loads fontspec
\defaultfontfeatures{Scale=MatchLowercase}
\defaultfontfeatures[\rmfamily]{Ligatures=TeX,Scale=1}
\fi
\usepackage{lmodern}
\ifPDFTeX\else
% xetex/luatex font selection
\fi
% Use upquote if available, for straight quotes in verbatim environments
\IfFileExists{upquote.sty}{\usepackage{upquote}}{}
\IfFileExists{microtype.sty}{% use microtype if available
\usepackage[]{microtype}
\UseMicrotypeSet[protrusion]{basicmath} % disable protrusion for tt fonts
}{}
\makeatletter
\@ifundefined{KOMAClassName}{% if non-KOMA class
\IfFileExists{parskip.sty}{%
\usepackage{parskip}
}{% else
\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{6pt plus 2pt minus 1pt}}
}{% if KOMA class
\KOMAoptions{parskip=half}}
\makeatother
\usepackage{longtable,booktabs,array}
\usepackage{calc} % for calculating minipage widths
% Correct order of tables after \paragraph or \subparagraph
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\longtable{\par}{\if@noskipsec\mbox{}\fi\par}{}{}
\makeatother
% Allow footnotes in longtable head/foot
\IfFileExists{footnotehyper.sty}{\usepackage{footnotehyper}}{\usepackage{footnote}}
\makesavenoteenv{longtable}
\ifLuaTeX
\usepackage[bidi=basic,shorthands=off,]{babel}
\else
\usepackage[bidi=default,shorthands=off,]{babel}
\fi
\ifLuaTeX
\usepackage{selnolig} % disable illegal ligatures
\fi
\setlength{\emergencystretch}{3em} % prevent overfull lines
\providecommand{\tightlist}{%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}
\usepackage{bookmark}
\IfFileExists{xurl.sty}{\usepackage{xurl}}{} % add URL line breaks if available
\urlstyle{same}
\hypersetup{
pdftitle={The Limit of the Formal What Modal Logic Cannot Show},
pdfauthor={Paul Koop},
pdflang={de},
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor={blue},
filecolor={Maroon},
citecolor={Blue},
urlcolor={Blue},
pdfcreator={LaTeX via pandoc}}
\title{The Limit of the Formal\\
What Modal Logic Cannot Show}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\providecommand{\subtitle}[1]{% add subtitle to \maketitle
\apptocmd{\@title}{\par {\large #1 \par}}{}{}
}
\makeatother
\subtitle{What Modal Logic Cannot Show}
\author{Paul Koop}
\date{}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
The treatises Modal 5--14 have shown the Trinity as a formal structure.
But they have also shown: The formal structure remains indeterminate in
several respects. The present treatise draws the consequence. It
distinguishes strictly between three levels: (i) what modal logic
proves, (ii) what it suggests, (iii) what it does not reach. It shows:
Modal logic can prove the necessity of the Trinity under assumptions,
but it cannot justify the choice of assumptions. This limit is
structurally related to Gödel's incompleteness theorems --- not because
S5 would be incomplete (it is complete), but because every formal system
cannot fully justify its own foundations. We stand at the beginning of
infinity.
\end{abstract}
{
\hypersetup{linkcolor=}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\tableofcontents
}
\emph{Past and future are horizons of knowledge.}\\
\emph{The present is the locus of reality.}\\
\emph{Nothing that was, is lost.}
\section{Preface: The Question of the Limit of the
Formal}\label{preface-the-question-of-the-limit-of-the-formal}
The treatises Modal 5--14 have shown the Trinity as a \textbf{formal
structure}:
\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
Modal 5 showed: The Trinity is derivable under the superposition
axioms.
\item
Modal 6 showed: The superposition axioms are independent.
\item
Modal 7 showed: The Trinity is axiom-invariant.
\item
Modal 8 showed: The Trinity is a topological limit.
\item
Modal 9 showed: The Trinity is bimodally non-unique.
\item
Modal 10 showed: Unitarity is the structure of \(T\).
\item
Modal 11 showed: The Trinity is timeless and present.
\item
Modal 12 showed: Evil is a path to the Good.
\item
Modal 13 showed: The observer is constitutive or structural.
\item
Modal 14 showed: The unity of perspectives follows from A1.
\end{itemize}
But the treatises have also shown: The formal structure remains
\textbf{indeterminate} in several respects.
The present treatise draws the consequence. It distinguishes strictly
between \textbf{three levels}:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
What modal logic \textbf{proves}.
\item
What it \textbf{suggests}.
\item
What it \textbf{does not reach}.
\end{enumerate}
The central claim of this treatise is:
\begin{quote}
\textbf{Modal logic can prove the necessity of the Trinity under
assumptions, but it cannot justify the choice of assumptions. This limit
is structurally related to Gödel's incompleteness theorems --- not
because S5 would be incomplete (it is complete), but because every
formal system cannot fully justify its own foundations.}
\end{quote}
The investigation remains faithful to the self-understanding of
\texttt{modal5.md}: It shows \textbf{dependencies}, not truths. It shows
the \textbf{limit} of formal work.
\section{Three Levels: Proving, Suggesting, Not
Reaching}\label{three-levels-proving-suggesting-not-reaching}
\subsection{The Three Levels}\label{the-three-levels}
Formal work operates on \textbf{three levels} that must be strictly
distinguished:
\textbf{Level 1: Proving.} What is \textbf{derivable} in a formal
system.
\textbf{Level 2: Suggesting.} What becomes \textbf{plausible} through
the formal results, but is not proven.
\textbf{Level 3: Not Reaching.} What lies \textbf{outside} formal work.
\textbf{Important:} The three levels are \textbf{hierarchical}. What is
shown on Level 1 can be \textbf{suggested} on Level 2. What lies on
Level 3 \textbf{cannot} be reached by formal work.
\subsection{The Consequences}\label{the-consequences}
\textbf{Consequence 1:} What is shown on Level 1 is \textbf{certain} ---
within the formal system.
\textbf{Consequence 2:} What is suggested on Level 2 is
\textbf{probable}, but not \textbf{certain}.
\textbf{Consequence 3:} What lies on Level 3 is \textbf{not} formally
reachable.
\subsection{The Methodological
Self-Restriction}\label{the-methodological-self-restriction}
The present treatise does \textbf{not} show that the Trinity exists. It
does \textbf{not} show that the axioms are true. It does \textbf{not}
show that formal work is the only mode of access.
It only shows: Formal work has \textbf{a certain reach} --- and a
\textbf{certain limit}.
\section{What Modal Logic Proves}\label{what-modal-logic-proves}
\subsection{The Metalogical Results from Modal
5--14}\label{the-metalogical-results-from-modal-514}
The treatises Modal 5--14 have proven the following \textbf{metalogical
results}:
\subsubsection{From Modal 5}\label{from-modal-5}
\[\boxed{S5 \not\vdash \Box\forall x\,Tr(x)}\]
\[\boxed{S5+SP \vdash \Box\forall x\,Tr(x)}\]
\subsubsection{From Modal 6}\label{from-modal-6}
\[\boxed{\{ASP2\} \vdash ASP1 \quad \text{(in S5)}}\]
\[\boxed{\{ASP3, ASP4, ASP5\} \vdash \Box\forall x\,Tr(x) \quad \text{(minimal)}}\]
\subsubsection{From Modal 7}\label{from-modal-7}
\[\boxed{S5+TOP \vdash \Box\forall x\,Tr(x)}\]
\[\boxed{S5+TEMP \vdash \Box\forall x\,Tr(x)}\]
\[\boxed{S5+MER \vdash \Box\forall x\,Tr(x)}\]
\subsubsection{From Modal 8}\label{from-modal-8}
\[\boxed{S5+SP+L \vdash \Box(U \land T \land S)}\]
\subsubsection{From Modal 9}\label{from-modal-9}
\[\boxed{\text{There are consistent bimodal models with } \Omega \neq \emptyset}\]
\subsubsection{From Modal 10}\label{from-modal-10}
\[\boxed{S5+U1+U2+U3 \vdash \Box\forall c(\text{Consciousness}(c) \rightarrow \Diamond \text{Resurrection}(c))}\]
\subsubsection{From Modal 11}\label{from-modal-11}
\[\boxed{S5+T1+T2+T3+T4 \vdash \Box(Z(U \land T \land S) \land N(U \land T \land S))}\]
\subsubsection{From Modal 12}\label{from-modal-12}
\[\boxed{S5+A1 \vdash \text{Evil is not a limit}}\]
\subsubsection{From Modal 13}\label{from-modal-13}
\[\boxed{S5+SP+B1+B2+B3+B4 \vdash \Box(U \land T \land S)}\]
\subsubsection{From Modal 14}\label{from-modal-14}
\[\boxed{S5+A1 \vdash \Box K(U, T, S)}\]
\subsection{What These Results
Achieve}\label{what-these-results-achieve}
These results show:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{The Trinity follows under certain assumptions.}
\item
\textbf{The assumptions are independent.}
\item
\textbf{The Trinity is axiom-invariant.}
\item
\textbf{The Trinity is formulable in different languages.}
\end{enumerate}
This is the \textbf{strength} of formal work.
\subsection{What These Results Do Not
Achieve}\label{what-these-results-do-not-achieve}
These results do \textbf{not} show:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{That the axioms are true.}
\item
\textbf{That the Trinity exists.}
\item
\textbf{That the choice of axioms is justified.}
\end{enumerate}
This is the \textbf{limit} of formal work.
\section{What Modal Logic Suggests}\label{what-modal-logic-suggests}
\subsection{The Metaphysical
Interpretations}\label{the-metaphysical-interpretations}
The metalogical results \textbf{suggest} certain metaphysical
interpretations:
\textbf{1. The Trinity is a structure, not an object.} (suggested by
Modal 8)
\textbf{2. The Trinity is the only limit structure.} (suggested by Modal
12)
\textbf{3. The Trinity is observer-conception-invariant.} (suggested by
Modal 13)
\textbf{4. The unity of perspectives is constitutive.} (suggested by
Modal 14)
\subsection{What ``Suggesting'' Means}\label{what-suggesting-means}
``Suggesting'' is \textbf{not} ``proving''. What is suggested is:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{plausible}, but not \textbf{compelling}.
\item
\textbf{compatible} with the formal results, but not
\textbf{required}.
\item
\textbf{in need of interpretation} --- the interpretation is not
determined by the form.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{The Consequence}\label{the-consequence}
From the formal results \textbf{does not follow} the metaphysical
interpretation. The interpretation is an \textbf{additional} decision.
\textbf{Formally:} The metalogical results are \textbf{compatible} with
several metaphysical interpretations. The choice of interpretation is
\textbf{not} determined by the form.
\subsection{The Open Questions}\label{the-open-questions}
What modal logic suggests is \textbf{not unique}. There are:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{Alternative interpretations} --- what in one interpretation is
called ``structure'' can in another be called ``substance''.
\item
\textbf{Indeterminate concepts} --- what ``consciousness'', ``death'',
``integration'' mean is not formally determined.
\item
\textbf{Open questions} --- many questions (e.g., whether there are
paths that do not reach the Omega Point) are not decided.
\end{enumerate}
\section{What Modal Logic Does Not
Reach}\label{what-modal-logic-does-not-reach}
\subsection{The Choice of Axioms}\label{the-choice-of-axioms}
The central limit of modal logic is: It cannot justify the
\textbf{choice of axioms}.
\textbf{Formally:} The metalogical results show only: \textbf{If} one
accepts certain axioms, \textbf{then} the Trinity follows. They do
\textbf{not} show: \textbf{That} one should accept these axioms.
\textbf{Consequence:} The choice of axioms is \textbf{not} a metalogical
question. It is a \textbf{metaphysical}, \textbf{physical}, or
\textbf{hermeneutic} question.
\subsection{The Three Aspects of Axiom
Choice}\label{the-three-aspects-of-axiom-choice}
\textbf{Aspect 1: Metaphysical choice.} Which metaphysical basic
concepts does one use? (superposition, topology, temporality, mereology)
\textbf{Aspect 2: Physical choice.} Which physical interpretation does
one prefer? (Copenhagen, MWI)
\textbf{Aspect 3: Hermeneutic choice.} Which interpretation of the
formal results does one choose? (structural, substantial)
\textbf{Consequence:} The axiom choice is \textbf{not} determined by the
form. It is a \textbf{decision} that lies outside formal work.
\subsection{The Limit between Perspective and
Structure}\label{the-limit-between-perspective-and-structure}
\textbf{What appears from the perspective of a path as intervention is,
from the perspective of S, structure.}
This insight from Modal 10 and Modal 16 marks a \textbf{fundamental
limit} of formal work:
\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{From the perspective of a path}, integration appears as
\textbf{future}, as \textbf{intervention}, as \textbf{grace}.
\item
\textbf{From the perspective of S}, it is \textbf{always already}
happened, is \textbf{structure}, is \textbf{necessity}.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Formally:} The two perspectives are \textbf{not compatible}
(Modal 9). They are \textbf{simultaneously true}.
\textbf{Consequence:} Formal work can describe \textbf{both}
perspectives. It \textbf{cannot} decide which is \textbf{the right one}.
\subsection{The Relation to Physics}\label{the-relation-to-physics}
Formal work \textbf{cannot replace} physics. It can:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{Describe structures} that are physically realizable.
\item
\textbf{Show dependencies} between axioms.
\item
\textbf{Explicate consequences} of assumptions.
\end{enumerate}
It \textbf{cannot}:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
Answer \textbf{empirical} questions.
\item
Make \textbf{experimental} predictions.
\item
Identify \textbf{physical} mechanisms.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Consequence:} Physics is an \textbf{autonomous} discipline.
Formal work is a \textbf{preparation} for it, not its
\textbf{replacement}.
\subsection{The Relation to Theology}\label{the-relation-to-theology}
Formal work \textbf{cannot replace} theology. It can:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{Describe structures} that are theologically interpretable.
\item
\textbf{Show dependencies} between axioms.
\item
\textbf{Explicate consequences} of assumptions.
\end{enumerate}
It \textbf{cannot}:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
Decide \textbf{questions of faith}.
\item
Test \textbf{revelation}.
\item
Answer \textbf{hermeneutic} questions.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Consequence:} Theology is an \textbf{autonomous} discipline.
Formal work is a \textbf{preparation} for it, not its
\textbf{replacement}.
\section{The Limit between Perspective and
Structure}\label{the-limit-between-perspective-and-structure-1}
\subsection{The Central Insight}\label{the-central-insight}
\textbf{What appears from the perspective of a path as intervention is,
from the perspective of S, structure.}
This insight is \textbf{fundamental} for understanding formal work:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
Formal work operates \textbf{on a certain level} --- the level of
structure.
\item
The perspective of a \textbf{single path} is \textbf{not} identical
with the structure.
\item
The \textbf{difference} between perspective and structure is
\textbf{not formally cancelable}.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{The Formal Version}\label{the-formal-version}
Let \(\gamma\) be a path and \(S\) the upper limit of Totality.
\textbf{From the perspective of \(\gamma\):} Integration appears as
future, as intervention, as grace.
\textbf{From the perspective of \(S\):} Integration is always already
happened, is structure, is necessity.
\textbf{Formally:}
\[\text{Perspective}(\gamma, \text{Integration}) \neq \text{Perspective}(S, \text{Integration})\]
\textbf{Consequence:} The two perspectives are \textbf{not identical}.
They are \textbf{simultaneously true}.
\subsection{The Consequences}\label{the-consequences-1}
\textbf{Consequence 1:} Formal work can describe \textbf{both}
perspectives.
\textbf{Consequence 2:} Formal work \textbf{cannot} decide which is
\textbf{the right one}.
\textbf{Consequence 3:} The \textbf{choice} of perspective is a
\textbf{hermeneutic} decision.
\subsection{The Relation to Modal 9}\label{the-relation-to-modal-9}
In Modal 9 it was shown: DeLillo and Van Dormael are bimodally
incompatible, but simultaneously true.
The limit between perspective and structure is \textbf{related} to this
insight:
\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{Perspective of a path} corresponds to \textbf{DeLillo}
(collapse, one reality).
\item
\textbf{Structure of S} corresponds to \textbf{Van Dormael} (no
collapse, all realities).
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Consequence:} The limit between perspective and structure is
\textbf{not} a defect of formal work. It is a \textbf{structural
property} of reality.
\section{Comparison with Wittgenstein, Gödel,
Carnap}\label{comparison-with-wittgenstein-guxf6del-carnap}
\subsection{Wittgenstein}\label{wittgenstein}
\textbf{Wittgenstein} (Tractatus) distinguishes between what is
\textbf{sayable} and what \textbf{shows itself}. The unsayable is
\textbf{not} an object of language.
\textbf{Comparison with our conception:}
\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{Common:} There is a limit of the formal.
\item
\textbf{Difference:} For Wittgenstein, the limit is
\textbf{linguistic}. For us, it is \textbf{structural}.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{What our conception achieves:} It avoids mysticism without
denying the limit.
\subsection{Gödel}\label{guxf6del}
\textbf{Gödel} (incompleteness theorems) shows: Every sufficiently
strong, consistent formal system contains true statements that are not
provable.
\textbf{Comparison with our conception:}
\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{Common:} The limit of the formal is \textbf{structural}.
\item
\textbf{Difference:} For Gödel, the limit is \textbf{within} the
system. For us, it is \textbf{between} system and application.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{What our conception achieves:} It shows that the limit is
\textbf{not} a defect of modal logic (S5 is complete), but a
\textbf{structural} property of \textbf{every} formal system.
\textbf{Important:} The limit is \textbf{structurally related} to Gödel,
but \textbf{not identical}. S5 is complete; the incompleteness lies
\textbf{not} in S5, but in the \textbf{application} to metaphysical
questions.
\subsection{Carnap}\label{carnap}
\textbf{Carnap} distinguishes between \textbf{internal} and
\textbf{external} questions. Internal questions are decidable within a
linguistic framework. External questions are \textbf{not} decidable ---
they are \textbf{practical} decisions.
\textbf{Comparison with our conception:}
\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{Common:} The choice of axioms is an \textbf{external}
question.
\item
\textbf{Difference:} For Carnap, the external question is
\textbf{pragmatic}. For us, it is \textbf{metaphysical},
\textbf{physical}, or \textbf{hermeneutic}.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{What our conception achieves:} It avoids pragmatism without
abandoning the distinction.
\subsection{The Point}\label{the-point}
Our conception takes up elements of all three philosophers:
\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
From Wittgenstein: The limit of the sayable.
\item
From Gödel: The structural limit of the formal.
\item
From Carnap: The distinction between internal and external questions.
\end{itemize}
But it differs from all three in that it grasps the limit
\textbf{structurally} --- as a \textbf{property} of formal work, not as
a \textbf{defect}.
\section{What Follows? The Form Has Done Its
Work}\label{what-follows-the-form-has-done-its-work}
\subsection{The Central Insight}\label{the-central-insight-1}
Formal work has \textbf{done its work}. It has shown:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{What is formally provable.}
\item
\textbf{What is formally suggested.}
\item
\textbf{What is formally unreachable.}
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Formal version:}
\[\boxed{\text{Proving} \sqsubset \text{Suggesting} \sqsubset \text{Not Reaching}}\]
\textbf{Reading:} The three levels are \textbf{hierarchical}. What is
proven is also suggested. What is suggested is not always proven. What
is unreachable is neither proven nor suggested.
\subsection{The Consequences}\label{the-consequences-2}
\textbf{Consequence 1:} Formal work is \textbf{not} the last instance.
It is a \textbf{preparation}.
\textbf{Consequence 2:} Formal work is \textbf{not} the only mode of
access. It is \textbf{one among several}.
\textbf{Consequence 3:} Formal work is \textbf{not} the truth. It is a
\textbf{form} of truth.
\subsection{The Relation to Tradition}\label{the-relation-to-tradition}
Classical metaphysics often seeks \textbf{the} truth. The present
treatise shows: There are \textbf{several} modes of access. The formal
one is \textbf{one} among them.
This is \textbf{not relativism}. It is an \textbf{insight}: Formal work
has its \textbf{reach} and its \textbf{limit}.
\section{Conclusion: What Has Been
Shown?}\label{conclusion-what-has-been-shown}
The present investigation has shown:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\item
\textbf{Modal logic proves certain results.} These results are the
metalogical results from Modal 5--14.
\item
\textbf{Modal logic suggests certain interpretations.} These
interpretations are metaphysical, but not compelling.
\item
\textbf{Modal logic does not reach certain questions.} These questions
are the choice of axioms, the metaphysical interpretation, the
hermeneutic decision.
\end{enumerate}
The central claim of this treatise is:
\begin{quote}
\textbf{Modal logic can prove the necessity of the Trinity under
assumptions, but it cannot justify the choice of assumptions. This limit
is structurally related to Gödel's incompleteness theorems --- not
because S5 would be incomplete (it is complete), but because every
formal system cannot fully justify its own foundations. We stand at the
beginning of infinity.}
\end{quote}
The treatise marks the \textbf{end} of formal work and the
\textbf{transition} to hermeneutics.
\section{Appendix A: The Three
Levels}\label{appendix-a-the-three-levels}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lll@{}}
\toprule\noalign{}
Level & What & Status \\
\midrule\noalign{}
\endhead
\bottomrule\noalign{}
\endlastfoot
Proving & Derivable results & Certain \\
Suggesting & Plausible interpretations & Probable \\
Not Reaching & External questions & Open \\
\end{longtable}
\section{Appendix B: The Metalogical Results from Modal
5--14}\label{appendix-b-the-metalogical-results-from-modal-514}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}
>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 2\tabcolsep) * \real{0.5000}}
>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 2\tabcolsep) * \real{0.5000}}@{}}
\toprule\noalign{}
\begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Modal
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Result
\end{minipage} \\
\midrule\noalign{}
\endhead
\bottomrule\noalign{}
\endlastfoot
5 & \(S5 \not\vdash \Box\forall x\,Tr(x)\);
\(S5+SP \vdash \Box\forall x\,Tr(x)\) \\
6 & \(\{ASP2\} \vdash ASP1\); \(\{ASP3, ASP4, ASP5\}\) minimal \\
7 & \(S5+TOP, S5+TEMP, S5+MER \vdash \Box\forall x\,Tr(x)\) \\
8 & \(S5+SP+L \vdash \Box(U \land T \land S)\) \\
9 & Consistent bimodal models with \(\Omega \neq \emptyset\) \\
10 & \(S5+U1+U2+U3 \vdash\) resurrection \\
11 &
\(S5+T1+T2+T3+T4 \vdash \Box(Z(U \land T \land S) \land N(U \land T \land S))\) \\
12 & \(S5+A1 \vdash\) evil is not a limit \\
13 & \(S5+SP+B1+B2+B3+B4 \vdash \Box(U \land T \land S)\) \\
14 & \(S5+A1 \vdash \Box K(U, T, S)\) \\
\end{longtable}
\section{Appendix C: Comparison with Wittgenstein, Gödel,
Carnap}\label{appendix-c-comparison-with-wittgenstein-guxf6del-carnap}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lll@{}}
\toprule\noalign{}
Philosopher & Limit of the Formal & Relation to Application \\
\midrule\noalign{}
\endhead
\bottomrule\noalign{}
\endlastfoot
Wittgenstein & Language & Unsayable \\
Gödel & System & Incompleteness \\
Carnap & Framework & External question \\
This treatise & Structure & Choice of axioms \\
\end{longtable}
\section{Afterword}\label{afterword}
You have read this treatise. Perhaps the idea surprised you that formal
work has a limit. Perhaps the consequence impressed you that this limit
is structural. Both are fine.
The investigation has shown: Modal logic has \textbf{done its work}. It
has proven the necessity of the Trinity under assumptions. It has shown
the dependencies between the axioms. It has explicated the axiomatic
structure of the Trinity.
What remains is the insight that formal work has a \textbf{limit}. It
cannot justify the choice of axioms. This limit is \textbf{not} a defect
of modal logic. It is a \textbf{structural property} of every formal
system.
One final question:
\begin{quote}
\textbf{Do we dare the leap into openness to the limit --- even though
the limit itself is not formally reachable, but only marks the limit of
the formal?}
\end{quote}
\emph{This treatise was written in the spirit of rigorous modal logic,
yet in the language of philosophy -- for truth requires both: the
precision of the formula and the breadth of the concept.}
\end{document}