David Birnbaum Metaphysics


ideas tap


Breaking the Code of the Cosmic Order

04/09/14 at 18:50

Why does cosmologist David Birnbaum need to coin new terms to crack the cosmic code?

Every dynamic science is accompanied by its own lexicon (vocabulary, terminology). Phenomena need labels so that science can identify and work with them. Consider the science of astrophysics which is related to the field of cosmology. On smaller scales these phenomena might include electrons, protons and quarks; on larger scales these phenomena might include solar systems, quasars, nebulae…. The basis of science is to explore, verify, analyze and explain. To achieve these ends, lexicons are built – to categorize, label, identify and give classification to the work-in-progress findings of scientists. This ‘labeling’ is fundamental to scientific exploration and advance.

Cosmology is the study of the origins, drive and nature of the cosmic order. For cosmologist David Birnbaum in search of a powerful and elegant cosmology, the old lexicon of cosmology was sorely lacking.

For over 7,000 years philosophers and scientists sought to explain the great cosmic order of the universe; however, even leading into the 21st century, cosmologists simply deploying the concepts and words they had at-hand would ultimately fail in their noble goal. That is, until Birnbaum stepped up. In 1988, Birnbaum presented an entirely new cosmology in his book, Summa Metaphysica I; it would later be followed by two follow-up volumes in 2005 and early 2014 respectively – presenting a full-spectrum metaphysical cosmological theory (see PotentialiamTheory.com).

But to wrap his arms around this new cosmic order and conceptualize it fully, Birnbaum needed a significant updating of the lexicon of cosmology itself. After all, the 20th century terminology gave us the dismal dead-end cosmology of Randomness; that theory is essentially an intellectual tossing-up of the hands; the hallowed halls of academia declared the universe unknowable and apparently destined for decay and implosion; that was hardly the direction Birnbaum was headed. To crack-the-cosmic-code Birnbaum needed a lexicon for his conceptualization of a potential-affirming, growth-affirming, life-affirming cosmos.

And so, to this end, Birnbaum enriched the vocabulary of cosmology to define terms for his ground breaking Theory of Potential – an elegant, powerful and original construct. Both the proposed construct and the discussion thereof mandated a new lexicon.

In the 20th century, the primarily British-centric academic champions of Randomness had brazenly attempted to curtail discussion and debate; they sought to enshrine their theory of randomness as unchallengeable dogma. At the forefront of an elite group of thinkers who have overthrown ossified Randomness theory, Birnbaum hails from radically more vibrant philosophical roots – and Birnbaum likes old-fashioned debate on new-fashioned ideas.

Believe it or not, at one time, the strength of a theory rested on its ability to weather critical discourse. People were encouraged to debate and defend their beliefs. The fact that rigorous intellectual debate became so alien in 20th century “science,” is just a reflection of how far the last century strayed from the principles of true intellectual inquiry and the rigors of the scientific method.

A new group of 21st century thinkers has lifted the torch to get the vibrancy of the field of cosmology back on its feet. Birnbaum’s Potentialism breathes life back into classic philosophy and back into the scientific method. To this end, the Manhattan-based, yeshiva-educated and Harvard-educated conceptual theorist Birnbaum has given us a fresh lexicon. Let us look at three Birnbaum-crafted terms and a fourth, derivative one – a SuperLaw – and then understand their place in new cosmology.

Complexification The Birnbaum-hypothesized ‘intermediate-level’ comic drive – for ever-greater complexity/sophistication/richness/variety/wondrousness. Shorthand notation: C+

C+ is hypothesized to represent the continual and infinite drive of all things in the universe. One might wonder why ‘complexity’ isn’t a sufficient word. Complexification encompasses much more than just increased complexity; as noted, C+ encompasses a wider gamut. Complexification is the ‘handmaiden’ of Birnbaum’s hypothesized overarching cosmic force Q4P∞:

Q4P∞ Quest for Potential∞ means Quest for Potential infinitely-iterated.

This is the overarching cosmic dynamic – and the core of Potentialism.
It can graphically be denoted as:

Quest for Potential ( Quest for Potential ( Quest for Potential (

Q4P∞ denotes the overarching primary drive of the universe – to seek-after its own Potential within Potential within Potential ad infinitum. In Potentialist terms, it is understood that everything in the universe innately seeks-after its own optimal and wondrous embedded Potential.

For example, atoms innately seek after Complexification – and molecules fit that goal; space dust innately seeks-after Complexification – and solar systems and stars fit-the-bill. All this is aided and abetted by the eternal Physics-Math laws of the universe itself. That is, eternal Quest for Potential harnesses the eternal components of the equations of Physics-Math to advance the cosmic order towards reaching for its optimal potential. This is the Birnbaum-hypothesized inherent way of our cosmic order. Quest for Potential∞ is a force of such power because of its infinite, inexorable and transcendent nature.

The nested, infinite quality of Q4P∞ is the core of its force and its undeniable hold on the cosmos. To understand it by a readily-available example, consider a single human being. A person has within them a great deal of Potential for Complexification; within that sphere, a person, as well, can procreate, meaning they can be the catalyst for an infinite number of people, all with their own inherent Potential. All that infinite Potential exists within every person. And that is why Potential is always expressed as infinite/nested/iterative in nature; the infinite/nested/iterative core of the dynamic is also the core of its overarching power to shape the universe.
E+ Extraordinariation. The goal of Q4P∞.

So, expressed as an equation: (Quest for Potential) > C+ (Complexification) > E+ Extraordinariation. Thus, Q4P∞ > C+ > E+.

It is the cosmic quest for ultimate –

The cosmic goal is profound.

Quest for Potential∞ is probing and searching for
…the elusive Extraordinariation

ultimate –

grandeur…elegance…beauty…symmetry…fulfillment….consciousness…harmony…artistry… symphony…spirituality…perfection…humanitarianism…romancing…love…parenting…meaning…altruism…mercy…

– plus possibilities and potentials as yet not precisely known either to us

or even known to

Quest for Potential∞ itself

The possible outermost-limit realization of the myriad potentials – both the known and unknown – would define the extraordinaration goal. In parallel to the concept of Infinity, Extraordinariation is a goal/horizon to be sought, but conceptually not ever quite-fully realized.

Thus, Extraordinariation (E+) is not concrete. Rather, it is the super-ideal end-goal of the universe itself. It is what Potential strives towards, through Complexification, to achieve. There is no true full and precise way to describe E+. Rather, it is the infinitely complex state of things after infinite iterations to come.

Meaning, we know the drive (Q4P∞), we know the intermediate mechanism (C+), and conceptually we know the goal of E+; however, as noted we do not – and cannot – know the very precise specifics of E+.

For example, consider when our planet was lifeless. How could you articulate 21st century Beethoven’s music? This is the issue with trying to fully describe Extraordinariation; until an expression of Complexification has arrived, we really have no concept of the precise form it will take. Much like a mathematical hyperbola approaching its asymptote, Complexification will drive us infinitely onwards closer and closer to E+ without ever reaching it, but infinitely approaching the perfect state of Complexification.

SuperLaw – The SuperLaw – uncovered by Summa Metaphysica – is expressed as Q4P > C+ > E+.

The SuperLaw gives us a bird’s eye view of the journey of Potentialism – from eternal origins to eternal destination. It actually encapsulates the inter-relation of the three mini-paradigms of the Theory of Potential: Q4P∞, C+ and E+. The SuperLaw emerges as a major conceptual breakthrough.

• Everything in the universe is driven inherently to seek out its own Potential.
• This in turn is effected via Complexification.
• Complexification is the mechanism,which drives all towards the Extraordinariation state of being.

These are just a few examples of the linguistics of Potentialism. As you can see, though, they are simply identifiers given to the mechanics and concepts of this newly-proposed metascience; they are tools to label newly-hypothesized phenomena – so that the dynamic theory can be explored and debated in more depth. For, if Potentialism seeks one thing beyond all else – it is to uncover ever-greater and more precise truth. And truth comes from knowledge, discussion and debate (and a little labeling).



future tech


February 4, 2015

The Birnbaum Theorem

By aaronphipps in technology

The unifying cosmological theorem proposed by Conceptual Theorist David Birnbaum of Manhattan

You heard of the Pythagorean Theorem: a2 + b2 = c2 (courtesy of ancient philosopher/mathematician Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BCE)?

The iconic Pythagorean Theorem is sort-of dwarfed in import when juxtaposed against the 21st Century Birnbaum Theorem: Here is the grand unifying theorem and its corollaries.

[note: Q4P∞ is Birnbaum’s shorthand notation for Birnbaum’s hypothesized eternal cosmic dynamic and cosmic ‘driver’ – Infinite Quest for Potential infinitely iterating.]

The Birnbaum Theorem:
Q4P∞ is eternal and is the universal constant.

1. Potential/Possibility is eternal.
2. This is true By Definition; this is self-evident.
3. The sole dynamic which can legitimately be posited with (near) certitude as eternal, is Potential/Possibility.
4. Quest for Potential∞ (shorthand notation: Q4P) is the core cosmic dynamic
5. If no Q4P, then no universe
6. Only a universe anchored by Q4P, can achieve true traction.
7. Only a Q4P universe has the possibility for life…. and humans…and possibly post-humans
8. We are in a Q4P-driven universe – at a moment in time when human life is flourishing

Cracking the cosmic code via a unified theory has been the elusive dream of science, philosophy and cosmology for the 7,000 years of civilization – ever since mankind has looked heavenward and tried to understand the universe. A holy grail for science, a unified theory has never hitherto truly been realized. Enter David Birnbaum (Summa Metaphysica I, 1988, Ktav Publishing). Birnbaum is an independent cosmologist and author of Potentialism Theory. So, what is the Birnbaum Theorem? Let’s look at some of the components of this innovative cosmological model. See PotentialismTheory.com

Theorem: Q4P∞ is eternal and is the universal constant.

Birnbaum spent 22 years (from age 10 in 1960 – age 32 in 1982) to get to this point. He had searched for the driver of the Cosmic Order. Birnbaum felt that the key to the cosmic code was hiding in plain sight. He conjectured that when he hit upon the correct theme, it would not only be eternal By Definition, but would simultaneously ’crack’ multiple hitherto ‘intractable’ problems/conundrums in metaphysics/cosmology/philosophy/astrophysics/evolutionary biology.

Meaning, in Birnbaum’s mind, any candidate concept for the core cosmic dynamic would, if genuinely the correct answer, simultaneously also solve the entire series of metaphysics-related issues. Thus, if a candidate for the correct ‘framing belief’ of the Cosmic Order not only was supported inductively (meaning by circumstantial evidence), but also simultaneously essentially lanced the entire series of key historical metaphysical issues, a winning concept was presumably in-hand. Such would indeed prove to be the case with Infinite Quest for Potential∞.

In early 1982 Birnbaum hit upon the concept of ‘potential’ as a candidate for his ‘cosmic key.’ Potential seemed to sort-of fit the bill; when Birnbaum re-sculpted the term and turbo-charged it infinitely into Q4P, the updated concept seemed to, indeed, perfectly fit the bill.

# Potential/Possibility is eternal.
# This is true By Definition; this is self-evident.
# The sole dynamic which can legitimately be posited as eternal is Potential/Possibility.
# Quest for Potential∞ (Q4P) is the core cosmic dynamic

The Birnbaum Theorem presents the only dynamic/cosmological agent, which can truly predate the Big Bang. Why is this important? The Big Bang itself must necessarily be caused by something. A prime mover so to speak. Contemporary physics, for all its strengths, simply does not have the repertoire or range to adequately address do this.

The core/gut question is –
What is the cosmic constant?

Not only can Potential be used to describe the core cosmic dynamic, but it can be used more broadly to explain something which existed before our current universe, which could trigger/cause the existence of our universe. Hypothesized Q4P can do so. It is simultaneously the fount of the Cosmic Order, its trigger, its sustainer, and its raison d’être. Q4P seems to be pretty much everything? It is. You and I are integral to it, not separate from it. It is both the overarching cosmic dynamic as well as the only truly eternal law of the cosmos. Not a classic entity; not even a classic quest. Q4P is more of a holistic quest.

# If no Q4P, then no universe
# Only a universe anchored by Q4P, can achieve true traction.

More importantly, there can be no universe without this cosmic constant. Q4P not only defines how the universe is; as well, it defines its core trajectory/evolvement.

But is it necessary for Q4P to exist at all? Only if one wants a universe. There is nothing intrinsic in science that required a Big Bang, nor is there for particles, atoms and molecules to have occurred. The “script” which the universe follows had to come from something eternal, overarching, and at the same time pervasive within it. The only ‘something’ that satisfies this model is Potential. Q4P is the source of traction which gives meaning and drive to the universe itself.

# Only a Q4P universe has the possibility for life…and humans…and possibly post-humans
# We are in a Q4P-driven universe at a moment in time when human life is flourishing.

The ‘observer requirement’

It has been posited that much of the universe relies on observation – that the universe could not be as it is without observation. Some science, like quantum mechanics, actually heavily relies on observation to function properly. There is a flaw in this hypothesis though. Humans were not always here. Where was ‘the observer’? How does scientific theory account for an ‘observer’ when humans were late in the game? Science could not answer the question – until Potentialism Theory answered it.

The ‘observer’ is eternal Q4P itself – integrating all data. The effect this has cosmologically is that it satisfies the ‘observer requirement’ before any human observer actually exists. This is the key to the temporal super-positioning (its positioning at the core/fount/apex of existence) being so important.


Life is a rich ‘platform’ from which to launch a plethora of potentials; life is thus on the trajectory from the void to the ultimate extraordinary; humans extend this potential, and provide a further advanced ‘platform’ to quest for the extraordinary (when we are not killing each other, that is).

The contemporary landscape

At this moment in time, life as we know it is flourishing. It is hard to predict what the landscape will look like a billion years hence (assuming there even is a landscape left).

More questions and answers

This does beg two important questions regarding the Birnbaum Theorem.
# Does this principle reinvent cosmology?
# Does this principle trump other constructs?

Reinventing cosmology might be a misnomer. It is more accurate to say cosmology has always been what it is. The Birnbaum Theorem is just finally cutting to the core of cosmology – discovering the truth of what has always been so.

As to trumping other constructs – science and cosmology are about truth and accuracy. The Birnbaum Theorem has been demonstrated to be a superior tool to describe the cosmos accurately and predict its workings. To that extent, it is certainly (far) superior to its predecessors. The theory effects one of the great scientific/philosophical paradigm shifts.

The only potential weakness in the otherwise bulletproof Birnbaum hypothesis is the following (ultimately weak) attack: How can we say with conviction that Potential/Possibility is eternal? Birnbaum has rather elegantly nailed-down this point with his interrelated arguments of By Definition/Self-Evident. Per Birnbaum:

By Definition, Potential/Possibility is eternal;

By proof we look at reality.

Reality exists;

This much is self-evident and observable.

Therefore, reality must have had the potential to exist;

Again, the obviousness is self-evident. Without potential, something cannot be.

Thus it is Self-Evident that Potential/Possibility is eternal.

Hence, we see Potential is its own causal loop so to speak.

But therein lies the true beauty of Potential. It is, at its heart, not an axiom but the axiom; the basic, self-evident truth from which we can build a better cosmic understanding. See ParadigmChallenge.com

Existing outside such linear concepts as time, it is the one true, fundamental force of the Cosmic Order, which can be said to be eternal. Even the universe as we know it cannot make that claim. Q4P is the one force in the cosmos which can comfortably predate even the Big Bang itself. Because before the Big Bang, there was only the potential that it – and all the wondrousness to flow from it – would occur.



future tech


December 9, 2014

Two Cosmologies Explaining the Universe
Anthropic Argument v. Potentialism Theory

By aaronphipps in technology

Cosmologists John Barrow and David Birnbaum confront two core questions:

Why is there a universe?
Why is the universe just right for human life?


Old School/Randomness v. New School/Directional

In the ongoing debate of cosmology, Barrow and Birnbaum support two competing theories. John Barrow firmly supports the concept of the Anthropic Argument aka the Strong Anthropic Cosmological Principle (SACP) (1986). David Birnbaum is the progenitor of Potentialism Theory aka the Theory of Potential (1988, 2005, 2014).

Barrow is an ‘old school cosmologist’ – 20th century orthodoxy – the universe is random, and humanity appeared by chance/happenstance.

Birnbaum is a ‘new school cosmologist’ – 21st century – there is, indeed, a teleology (direction/purpose/drive) to the universe – and he delineates it. [Of course it was Birnbaum himself who perhaps instigated 21st century ‘new school cosmology’ in his seminal 1988 work Summa Metaphysica I (Ktav Publishing)].

# Prime Question #1: Why, indeed, is there a universe?
# Prime Question #2: Why, indeed is the universe just right for human life?

(b. 1952, England; Cambridge, England based)

Barrow is an eminent University of Cambridge theoretician/mathematician/cosmologist/physicist; he operates at the pinnacle of the British scientific academic establishment.

So, how does Barrow [via his SACP (1986)] answer the two Prime Questions?

With regards, Prime Question #1 –
Barrows will state that the universe is a cosmic accident, and we happen to be in the right universe.

With regards Prime Question #2 –
Barrows essentially gives an inter-related three-part answer:
A) The universe is compelled to ultimately have human observers
B) Random chance happenstance: Out of infinite universes (multi-verse), in our particular universe, as an outgrowth of ‘survivalist’ Evolution, humans made-an-appearance
C) Else we would never be able to tell-the-tale.

[Barrow simply stops before discerning/articulating any true, primary causation for man – or the universe.]

His co-authored classic text is The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, Oxford University Press, 1986.

The respective ‘Achilles heels’ of each of Barrow’s three inter-related SACP points are as-follows:
re: Point –
#A above: (aaa) Why is the universe compelled to specifically have human observers? and (bbb) So who observed the Big Bang et al. for the many billions of years pre-homo sapiens?
#B above: How did Randomness get us to life…. and to Beethoven?
#C above: Sounds like circular reasoning (as does Point #1)

Birnbaum (b. 1950, NY; Manhattan-based)

David Birnbaum (see DavidBio1000.com) independent scholar, Conceptual Theorist, metaphysicist, and author of the Summa Metaphysica series, founder of Potentialism Theory.

So, how does Birnbaum [via his Potentialism Theory (1988, 2005, 2014)] answer the two Prime Questions?

With regards, Prime Question #1 –
Birnbaum: Infinite Quest for Potential∞ sought-after
actualization/realization; the universe is its vehicle.

The Birnbaum answer is elegant, precise and direct.

The progenitor of Potentialism Theory will argue that if (hypothesized) Infinite Quest for Potential∞ (aka Q4P∞) is not the core cosmic dynamic, there would, indeed, be no universe – as (hypothesized) Infinite Quest for Potential∞ (aka Q4P∞) s the only dynamic which could get us to this point. [And, since we exist, (hypothesized) Infinite Quest for Potential∞ (aka Q4P∞) must exist.]

With regards Prime Question #2 – Birnbaum argues that the universe is ideal for life – because (hypothesized) Infinite Quest for Potential (aka Q4P) seeks-after the extraordinary – and life finds itself on the universe’s route towards the extraordinary – as life is a great platform for the extraordinary; Human life, in particular, is a gateway to the extraordinary.

Birnbaum is the author of The Theory of Potential aka Potentialism Theory (see TTOE1000.com). To Potentialists, the universe is as wondrous as it is, because it follows an arc, a basic goal – an inherent drive to seek-after its own maximal/optimal Potential.

Birnbaum argues that an examination of the 14 billion years of cosmic history shows that the universe is on a continual path towards ever-increasing complexity/sophistication/richness/integration/variety/wondrousness; in short, towards the ever more extraordinary.

The author of Summa Metaphysica coins several terms to handle several original Birnbaumian concepts – to so-to-speak crack the cosmic code:

Per Birnbaum’s theory, three key inter-related Birnbaumian concepts – Quest for Potential∞ (shorthand: Q4P∞) – the cosmic drive Complexification (shorthand: C+) – the cosmic work- horse mechanism Extraordinariation (E+) – the cosmic goal/horizon

Per Birnbaum, eternal and infinite Quest for Potential∞ via its ‘work horse’ mechanism of Complexification (C+) – drives the universe (and our planet) ever-onward towards Extraordinariation (E+). [See Glossary1000.com.]

The formula would be: Q4P ∞ > C+ > E+

In short: Eternal Potential drives the cosmic order towards ever-greater Potential.

Thus, life and humanity are ramifications of this inexorable cosmic quest – towards first Complexification (C+), and ultimately towards Extraordinariation (E+)

As noted, Birnbaum hypothesizes that the universe seeks-after the extraordinary, and that life fills that criteria. A little while back dinosaurs may have been the most extraordinary life forms around; however, upon their extinction the universe ultimately vectored towards ever-advanced humans – and their integral ever-higher level consciousness – on its journey towards the ultimate extraordinary. You get-the-drift. The Birnbaum conceptual edifice rests upon its anchor of Infinite Potential (more later).

Infinite amount of universes?

The Barrow SACP requires an infinite amount of universes to explain its theory – along with the (rather dubious) possibility that in an infinite number of universes Randomness would, indeed, lead to humans, as we know them.

The Birnbaum Potentialism Theory does not require more than one universe (ours) – although it could live with more; if more, all would need to be spawned by Potential/Possibility.

Apologists for the SACP tend to diverge into infinite multiverse arguments when trying to defend themselves. They would argue that if there are an infinite number of universes then humanity will only live in the ones with the right physical laws to promote the existence of humanity. Again, though, this suffers from the same circular argument weakness SACP usually has.

The SACP argument introduces a false assertion that Probability Theory would allow infinite universes to deliver human life via randomness; however Probability Theory deals with the possible, not the impossible; thus SACP vainly and erroneously relies now on some hypothetical infinite number of universes to square its circle – as there is no number of universes, no matter how large an infinite number, which can yield human life from Randomness.

In contrast, Birnbaum’s Potentialism Theory needs no such acrobatics or astrophysics/Probability Theory chicanery. This is because Potentialism gives direction to the universe. Whereas SACP requires infinite universes until – via Mission Impossible – the potluck of physics allegedly arrives at one capable of sustaining human life, a Potentialism-based universe arrives at the necessary rules of physics possibly on the first try.

Is Randomness Theory fatally flawed?

Note that Birnbaum – along with many theoreticians, scientists, mathematicians – believes firmly that if one uses Randomness as the baseline working hypothesis, one never gets to human beings, no matter how many infinite universes; Birnbaum observes that those who signed-up for Randomness/Atheism as their cosmology, no matter how credential-laden they may be, simply do not understand grasp that Probability Theory will simply not deliver them Beethoven from random multiverse.

As noted, Probability Theory deals with possibilities, not impossibilities. Many millions of small and large steps got us to human life; the potluck universe would have had to replicate a very, very long sequence of steps spanning billions of years – with all the pieces falling into place in-sequence, on-time – along with the myriad supporting biological cast in-step. The logically dubious Randomness Theory makes alchemy – the chicanery of allegedly turning base metals into gold – look like hard science.

Asserting, as many of the British academic elite do with total certitude, that anything is possible given enough time, is simply wrong; it is not a seriously-grounded assertion, and is most certainly not scientific. The dogmatic assertion is, frankly, just yet more Atheistic religious fanaticism; the assertion does not even qualify as juvenile science.

Complexification (C+)

Birnbaum proposes that the (intermediate) cosmic drive is Complexification (C+) – the drive towards ever-greater complexity/sophistication/richness/integration/variety/wondrousness; that the universe inexorably seeks ever-greater Complexification.

Humanity represents a higher order of Complexification than any other life form (to date), just as life itself represents a higher form of Complexification than mindless molecules. Thus, over the course of billions of years, approximately 100 Elements from sundry exploding supernovas across the far reaches of the cosmic order ultimately coalesce to form humans on planet Earth.

Birnbaum would replace the (1986) Strong Anthropic Cosmological Principle with his own cosmic guideline: The BCP

The Birnbaum Cosmological Principle

1. The only dynamic which can legitimately be posited as eternal (with traction possibilities)is Potential/Possibility.
1b. Birnbaum hypothesizes Quest for Potential∞ (Q4P∞) as the core cosmic dynamic
2a. If no Q4P∞, then no universe
2b. Only a universe with Q4P∞, can achieve traction
3a. Only a Q4P∞ universe has the possibility for life…. and humans….and possibly post-humans
3b. We are in a Q4P∞-driven universe at a moment in time when human life is flourishing.

Context & Comparison

If one is tied to Randomness theory, probably the best one can do for an ‘overarching’ theory is SACP; however SACP is a theory highly-vulnerable to attack at all its three key points (as noted above); indeed, if SACP breaks down at any of its three points – and each of the three is, indeed, weak – the theory as-a-whole collapses. Note that Point #2 of the 3-point theory – a Randomness-driven universe – is indeed, fatally weak.

The only potential weakness in the otherwise bullet-proof Birnbaum hypothesis is the following (ultimately weak) attack: Where did eternal Potential/Possibility derive from? However, observers not linked to pre-existing theories tend to agree that Birnbaum has elegantly nailed-down this point with his inter-related arguments of By Definition/Self-evident.
[see recapitulation just-below]. No flaw has been discerned in the Birnbaum proposition since introduced in Summa I (Ktav Publishing) in 1988.

Birnbaum’s ‘By Definition/Self-evident’ argument summary

Per Birnbaum, By Definition Potential/Possibility is eternal; reality exists; therefore it must have had the potential to exist; it is Self-evident that Potential/Possibility is eternal.

Note these are pretty airtight arguments – which is why Birnbaum set out to craft the 3-part Summa Metaphysica series (see Philosophy1000.com) in the first place. Birnbaum quips that he is lucky that Aristotle somehow missed it.

The Randomness/Atheist group may wish-away the Quest for Potential∞ teleology hypothesis, but now that the argument is in the public domain, this pipe dream will dissipate; Massive global media coverage of Potentialism Theory is partially due to the pretty savage ad hominem attacks on Birnbaum by surrogates of Randomness/Atheist theory; however, Potentialism Theory will inevitably ultimately prevail, just as over time strong currency trends to drive out weak currency.

Bypassing the Randomness/Atheist academic junta, the media has given the Birnbaum signature concept significant global coverage and vetting. No conceptual flaw has been discerned in the Birnbam construct; indeed, Potentialism Theory is self-contained via its By Definition/Self-evident logic. See links for 150+ feature articles/reviews of Quest for Potential∞ theory at SummaCoverage.com. Note that there are over 80 focused pieces on the theory in the last 18 months alone.


As demonstrated, SACP has quite-serious and gaping vulnerabilities in all three of its key points; that theory is heavily circular; on the other side of the debate, PotentialismTheory is elegant and seemingly bulletproof; Birnbaum has nailed-down the one possible vulnerability in his own PotentialismTheory construct. The denouement of the debate is thus one-sided; it is ultimately no contest: Potentialism Theory quite-definitively trumps SACP, historic University of Cambridge notwithstanding.

“The old order changeth,
yielding place to new…”

– The Idylls of the King
The Passing of Arthur
by Alfred Lord Tennyson