Preregistration of the Categorial-Gap Trial: the modal coincidence between Positive No-Ground and Ethical Ontology, Volume I

Abstract

Conditions fixed in advance for a trial of the corpus's own novelty claim. Positive No-Ground determines the common as possibilising necessitation and the locus of answerability as singularising necessarisation; Ethical Ontology, Volume I determines the who as their modal coincidence, held to be a categorial gap conditioned by the two poles without being entailed by them. The categorial act is not testable and no classifier is asked to have an intuition; what is tested is the retrospective enabling relation, through two forced readings — forward from Positive No-Ground alone by a reader who does not know a coincidence is claimed, then backward from the coincidence. The gap obtains only if the forward reading stops short of what the backward reading requires. The attestation threshold is amended in advance and printed, since a reader seeking a passage in which the earlier work makes the coincidence available would correctly find none and suspend for the wrong reason. Six outputs with convicting conditions and costs, entailment being the most expensive. Deposited before any classification is performed under it. Version 1.1 adds the completed classification report. The trial was performed under the conditions deposited in version 1.0 and returned a-posteriori enabling: the forward reading of Positive No-Ground, conducted in isolation by a reader who did not hold Volume I and did not know a coincidence was claimed, reaches an asymmetrical recursive relation of determination without mutual exhaustion and stops before one obtaining; the backward reading finds the enabling conditions in Positive No-Ground; and the same passages do not entail the coincidence, that book expressly restricting its modal language to an alethic-attributive grammar and declining to determine a general way in which being obtains. The entailment case was built at full strength and fails at five identifications. Two limitations are printed with the verdict: the non-entailment finding is partly dependent on distinctions drawn by the later text, which is the claimant, its independent leg being the earlier book's own self-limits; and the forward reading rests on a single reader. The verdict confirms the expected account and therefore proves the least. Publication is unconditional on outcome.