When theorizing about an all-inclusive reality, the first and most important principle is containment, which simply tells us what we should and should not be considering. Containment principles, already well known in cosmology, generally take the form of tautologies; e.g., "The physical universe contains all and only that which is physical." The predicate "physical", like all predicates, here corresponds to a structured set, "the physical universe" (because the universe has structure and contains objects, it is a structured set). But this usage of tautology is somewhat loose, for it technically amounts to a predicate-logical equivalent of propositional tautology called autology, meaning self-description. Specifically, the predicate physical is being defined on topological containment in the physical universe, which is tacitly defined on and descriptively contained in the predicate physical, so that the self-definition of "physical" is a two-step operation involving both topological and descriptive containment. While this principle, which we might regard as a statement of "physicalism", is often confused with materialism on the grounds that "physical" equals "material", the material may in fact be only a part of what makes up the physical. Similarly, the physical may only be a part of what makes up the real. Because the content of reality is a matter of science as opposed to mere semantics, this issue can be resolved only by rational or empirical evidence, not by assumption alone.
http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011...he-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/
Here, Langan is defining reality on a predicate, but he is using the word "physical" as a part of the cosmological containment principle which amounts to a predicate-logical equivalent of propositional tautology called "autology", or self-descriptive statement. He is using it as part of a tautological statement about the universe, namely, that it is physical. Later he acknowledges that the material may only be part of what makes up the physical. To me, this is a safe bet for he makes no assumptions regarding the make-up of the universe but takes only logical predicates and from this creates the CTMU which confirms that God is a part of reality.
http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011...he-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/
Here, Langan is defining reality on a predicate, but he is using the word "physical" as a part of the cosmological containment principle which amounts to a predicate-logical equivalent of propositional tautology called "autology", or self-descriptive statement. He is using it as part of a tautological statement about the universe, namely, that it is physical. Later he acknowledges that the material may only be part of what makes up the physical. To me, this is a safe bet for he makes no assumptions regarding the make-up of the universe but takes only logical predicates and from this creates the CTMU which confirms that God is a part of reality.
