FACT, FICTION, AND FLUX

Toward a Procedural-Metaphysical Explanation of Dukkha (suffering)

By Bodhangkur Mahathero

Abstract

This article develops a rigorous metaphysical framework for understanding facts as momentary obtaining states-of-affairs, argues that compound entities (such as human beings) are not facts but dynamically stabilised fictions grounded in continuous flux, and applies this model to reinterpret the Buddhist concept of dukkha (suffering) as a procedural feedback mechanism responding to destabilisation in complex adaptive systems. The analysis integrates contemporary metaphysics, systems theory, the ontology of events, and early Buddhist phenomenology, demonstrating that the Buddha’s doctrine of anatta (non-self) is a phenomenological anticipation of a deeper procedural ontology.

1. Introduction

Philosophical discussions of facts, identity, and suffering often rely on imprecise or intuitively inherited categories. This article begins by defining “fact” with ontological precision, then examines the implications of this definition for the nature of identity, complex organisms, and emergent (generative) systems. We argue that compound entities—including human beings—are not facts but realistic fictions constituted by momentary micro-events. These conclusions are then connected to Buddhist theories of self and suffering, particularly the Buddha’s analysis of dukkha and anatta. We propose a structurally grounded, mechanistic explanation of dukkha as feedback to flux, thereby offering a generative interpretation that complements and extends early Buddhist thought.

2. Facts as Temporally Bounded Obtainings

2.1 Definitional Framework

A fact is defined as:

an obtaining state-of-affairs—a condition or event that actually happens at a determinate moment or within a bounded temporal interval, independent of belief or interpretation.

This definition aligns with event ontology, contemporary physics, and the metaphysical tradition stemming from Davidson, Kim, and others who treat events as the locus of actuality.

2.2 Consequences of the Definition

Several implications follow logically:

1. Facts are momentary or interval-bound.
A fact obtains only while its conditions obtain. When the conditions cease, so does the fact.

2. Statements are not facts.
Statements may be true about facts, but truth is relational; facts are not.

3. No enduring compound can be a fact.
Enduring entities (e.g., mountains, persons) consist of multiple temporally distinct obtaining states and therefore cannot themselves be facts.

Example

Consider the statement:

“Water is boiling in the pot.”

This corresponds to a fact only during the period during which water molecules are transitioning to vapour at sufficient kinetic energy. Outside that interval, the fact ceases.

Thus, all facts possess temporal finitude.

3. Human Identity as Realistic Fiction

3.1 Biological and Physical Composition

A human organism consists of approximately:

· 73 trillion living cells,

· each composed of ~100 trillion atoms,

· each atom composed of dynamically interacting subatomic fields and events.

At every micro-scale, nothing is static:

· cells die, regenerate, and exchange constituents;

· atoms enter and leave the organism;

· subatomic interactions occur at relativistic speeds.

Therefore:

A human being is not a single fact but a vast constellation of micro-facts, each transient.

3.2 Fictional, Yet Realistic

The “human” is a fiction in the technical sense:

· it is not a single obtaining state-of-affairs,

· nor is it numerically identical across time.

But it is a realistic fiction because:

· it is grounded in continuous self-interacting processes;

· it maintains local coherence;

· it exhibits stability-patterns grounded in physical interactions at c.

Example

If one examines a human organism at time t₁ and t₂, separated by even milliseconds, its constituent atoms, molecular arrangements, neural patterns, and boundary conditions will differ. Yet we still designate the pattern as “the same person.” This designation is functional, not factual.

3.3 Identity as Procedural Stability

Given the above:

Identity = the operational stability of a continuously refreshed event-pattern.

Identity is neither substance nor illusion; it is a procedure.

This interpretation converges with, but refines, process philosophy (Whitehead), systems theory (Maturana & Varela), and contemporary biology (autopoiesis), replacing metaphors with strict ontological commitments about momentary facts.

4. The Deep Implication: There Are No Enduring Entities

From the momentariness of facts and the flux of micro-events, we derive:

There are no entities—only iterated processes.

Every compound “thing” is:

· a coordinated cluster of micro-facts,

· undergoing continual reconfiguration,

· maintaining relative stability for adaptive reasons.

Example

The “self” is an experiential interface generated by dynamic neural processes, none of which persist identically across even seconds. To call this a “self” is a shorthand for a stable-enough continuity of operations.

This view echoes—but systematises—classical Buddhist phenomenology.

5. The Buddha’s Analysis: Anatta and the Structure of Flux

5.1 Parallel Insights

In the Pali Canon, the Buddha asserts:

· all phenomena are impermanent (anicca),

· the aggregates constituting a person are unstable (khandha),

· and no permanent self exists (anatta).

This is effectively equivalent to the conclusion:

A human is not a fact but a flux-pattern.

The Buddha arrived at this through introspection and phenomenological analysis rather than metaphysical reduction.

5.2 The Buddha’s Limitations

However, Buddhism provides no generative ontology explaining:

· why flux coheres at all,

· how patterns stabilise,

· or what mechanisms produce continuity.

Dependent origination (paticca-samuppāda) is descriptive rather than explanatory: it enumerates conditional relations without providing a mechanism of iteration or procedural structure.

Thus:

The Buddha correctly diagnosed the phenomenology but lacked the underlying procedural physics.

6. Toward a Procedural-Metaphysical Explanation of Dukkha

6.1 Dukkha as Response to Flux

Given our framework, the central Buddhist concept of dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness) becomes intelligible as:

an adaptive feedback signal generated when flux threatens the coherence of a complex emergent pattern.

This reinterpretation is mechanistic, not moral or metaphysical.

6.2 Structural Explanation

Flux generates:

· unpredictable perturbations,

· entropy increases in local subsystems,

· disruptions of equilibrium,

· mismatches between expected and actual conditions.

Organisms respond by generating:

· pain signals (somatic error correction),

· suffering signals (cognitive mismatch detection).

Dukkha is thus:

the experiential alarm that procedural stability is being undermined.

Example

When one’s hand touches a hot stove, the thermal energy rapidly destabilises cellular integrity. Pain functions as a high-priority adaptive signal demanding immediate corrective action.

Similarly, when social rejection occurs, cognitive models of coherence and belonging are disrupted; suffering emerges to prompt behavioural recalibration.

6.3 Comparison to the Buddha’s Framework

The Buddha explains dukkha as arising from:

· impermanence,

· attachment,

· misperception of self.

We refine this:

Dukkha arises because flux continually destabilises the emergent fiction of identity; suffering is the system’s feedback to instability.

Thus, the First Noble Truth becomes a technical statement:

· “Life is suffering” →
Complex systems generate destabilisation feedback under flux.

7. Implications for the Four Noble Truths

This procedural ontology upgrades Buddhist doctrine:

1. Dukkha
= instability feedback.

2. Cause of dukkha
= excessive mismatch between system expectations and environmental flux.

3. Cessation of dukkha
= restoration of coherence and reduction of mismatch.

4. Path
= procedural optimisation (cognitive, behavioural, physiological) to increase coherence resilience.

This provides a non-mystical, generative explanation compatible with physics, evolutionary biology, and cognitive science.

8. Conclusion

This article has argued that:

1. Facts are momentary or interval-bound obtaining events.

2. Compound entities (such as persons) are not facts but emergent fictions grounded in continuous micro-event flux.

3. Identity is procedural, not metaphysical.

4. The Buddha’s theory of anatta accurately describes the non-factual status of the self but lacks a generative mechanism.

5. Dukkha is best explained as the experiential feedback system responding to destabilisation produced by flux.

This synthesis provides a unified ontological and phenomenological model that connects modern event-based metaphysics, systems theory, and classical Buddhist insight. It completes what the Buddha articulated phenomenologically by supplying the procedural and physical foundations he did not possess.

The Procedural Theory of Suffering

Home