Although the problems of induction have been discussed at length in philosophy, I believe that deduction has not been thought about with the same intensity. However, for this very reason, there is a deep illusion that has been constructed by deduction and has managed to hide itself for a long time. This illusion is that deduction imposes a creator or purpose structurally. Here, I am not talking about an intention, a mistake or a misunderstanding that needs to be corrected; but a necessity arising from the internal logic of thought. The parts obtained by deduction have a dynamic that transforms their correlations into causality due to the structure of perception. It is quite natural when we have the parts and a result to be reached, but let's examine together where this structural feature can take us. Since this problem is not included in the literature, I aim to define the problem and solve it from beginning to end.
How Does a Human Perceive?
The relationship that humans establish with the world is based on a single perception model. However, there is a second form embedded in this structure: pseudo-perception. In this article, I will first discuss the basic perception model, and then this second form.
When the mind encounters an event, it freezes the event for a moment in order to make sense of it. Because it is not possible to examine an ongoing process simultaneously, and the ongoing data change cannot be examined simultaneously. For this reason, the mind stops a video, as it were, and fixes that moment like a photograph. Then, it begins to deductively analyze this fixed “moment of the event”: It mentally breaks it down. Of course, it cannot separate all the components of the event, but only those that it can perceive. These parts usually include the context of the event as well as what is observed. Because the context is not an external plane of interpretation, but a structural part of the event.
The mind then puts these parts back together, but this is not a random collection. Each part is combined within a certain context and gains meaning. We can express the process with an analogy: Let's say we encounter an event with 10 parts. The mind recognizes 7 of its parts; this recognition is possible through observation, experience or context. The remaining 3 parts are uncertain. However, the mind ignores these missing parts and assumes the event as a whole. The event is complete, has been given meaning and can now be reacted to. At least, this is how it works at the level of perception.
The second type is the pseudo-perception illusion. In this second type, when a person encounters an event, they think that they are not making a deductive analysis, but are simply following an inductive process from the parts to the whole. However, this is not possible. Because which parts will be selected, where they will be placed and what they will be associated with have already been determined by a mental presupposition. This presupposition is the product of an invisible deduction made in the past.
Pseudo-perception is therefore an illusion: The mind thinks that it has made an inductive discovery; but in fact, a hidden deduction has already been made. What I mean is this. The time between the moment the mind receives the data and the moment it reaches the answer is so short that it is perceived as if deduction is not included in this answer. However, this event has already been solved in the past by means of deduction and has been proven to work in the mind. (I will call this modular knowledge in the rest of the text) The source of this illusion is a structural difference operating between nature and the human mind. Nature constructs by induction; humans perceive by deduction. Nature progresses from parts to the whole; the mind, on the other hand, grasps the whole at a moment of observation and begins to dismantle it backwards.
The graphic below visually demonstrates this structural difference:
In the graph, the horizontal axis represents time, the vertical axis represents space. The lines represent the paths of events in nature. The mind intersects one of these curves at a certain moment, and these intersections are represented by squares. The intersection is the “moment of observation.” However, the moment of observation is not the beginning of the event, but only the moment when it comes into contact with the mind. However, the event has already happened. At this point, the mind stops what is happening; then it applies deduction by tracing back (as seen in the graph below), then comes from the past it has gone to, in short, it breaks down the event and reconstructs it. Perception is not simultaneous with reality; it always follows it.
There is another aspect to this structure: The mind does not have to analyze every event it encounters. In some cases, it reacts directly. Because this event has already been analyzed and has become a mental module (dogma). I will call this type of knowledge dogmatic (modular) knowledge. Dogma is a block of information that is no longer fragmented and questioned. This is not a passive repetition of memory; it is the fixed forms of previous deductive analyses. It would not be wrong to equate this with the observation moments in the graphs. Because, as seen in the deduction graph, deduction only continues until the previous useful observation moment. It is not interested in the rest. As a result, the way humans interpret events does not follow the same direction as nature. Nature constructs the future; humans analyze the past. Perception always comes late. It is not simultaneous with the event. Reality flows forward; the mind fixes it, dismantles it and constructs it in the opposite direction. Therefore, deduction is not only a method; it is a necessary framework that determines the direction of perception. There is no such thing as induction (in isolation) as a human (observer) perception. Although I share the same views as Popper on the epistemological invalidity of induction, unlike him, I do not see induction as possible even at the mental level.
Ethical Entropy: Time, Existence, and the Moral Cycle
The delayed access of the human mind to reality has structural consequences not only at the level of knowledge but also at the ethical level. When the mind reacts to events, it not only analyzes them, but also produces value judgments about how to act towards them. These judgments may be valid and meaningful within the context of the moment. However, as time progresses, each ethical norm begins to conflict with another event, with another necessity.
This conflict is not an exception, but a structural necessity. Because time is one-way; events develop forward, not backward. Ethical systems, on the other hand, are often based on past solutions. Therefore, if enough time passes, all ethical systems are forced to conflict with existence itself. This conflict eventually resolves all values, and only “existence” remains.
However, here begins not a contradiction, but a cycle. Because existence must produce some ethical principles again in order to sustain itself. Existence requires energy; nutrition is required for energy; cooperation, division of labor, and social organization are required for nutrition. Thus, ethics is reestablished not against existence, but in its service. This is a moral cycle: Ethical systems dissolve over time, existence remains; then a new ethical system is born to sustain existence. Therefore, morality is not a fixed set of values; it is a set of strategies that have to be re-established in entropic time. Ethics ultimately seeks not the “right” but the “sustainable”. The mind is a late interpreter in the face of nature; but existence always produces a new moral ground for the mind.
Why Does Deduction Always Leave Behind an Unknown Piece?
The mind, faced with an event, initiates a deductive analysis to make sense of it. However, this analysis is never complete. There is always a missing piece. This missing piece is not just a cognitive deficiency, but a deeper structural necessity. In order to explain this necessity, two basic concepts need to be defined: epistemological forgetting and positional knowledge.
a) Positional Knowledge
The mind never has a universal or divine point of view. Every observation is made from a particular location and time. Every meaning-making arises from a context. This context is not merely cultural or historical, but a matter of physical and cognitive location. We call this positional knowledge.
To explain this situation, let's consider a classic thought experiment:
Let's randomly place 20 blind people around an elephant. Each one touches the elephant with his hands and tries to describe what he encounters. One touches the trunk and thinks it is a snake; one touches the foot and thinks it is a tree trunk; another touches the ear and thinks it is a sail. Each one correctly identifies the part he touches. But what emerges are 20 different descriptions of elephants. All are partially correct, but none are complete. Because knowledge is where you are; it is positional.
Similarly, when the mind encounters an event, it perceives it not in its entirety, but from a perspective filtered from its own location, context, and past. Therefore, deduction never provides an absolute explanation; it only establishes a positional model.
b) Epistemological Forgetting and the Formation of Dogma
Let us now focus on the second structural problem, epistemological forgetting. This concept is not only related to “forgetfulness” at the individual level, but also to the structural limits of knowledge systems.
Humanity has been producing knowledge for thousands of years. At some point, this production has reached a volume that the human mind cannot directly process. In order for knowledge to be processed, humans have had to establish a form of consciousness above themselves: artificial intelligence.
Now, the function of producing and processing knowledge is transferred to artificial intelligence. However, this transition produces blindness. Because artificial intelligence does not have receptors like humans. For example, nettles make people itch. This knowledge is a direct bodily experience; it is a receptor response. Humans create this knowledge from nature; artificial intelligence only accepts it. Now, the knowledge “nettles make people itch” becomes a data whose truth is not debatable. At this point, a form of knowledge that is no longer questioned, cannot be reproduced, but works well enough is formed: dogma.
This structure works not only culturally, but also biologically. Mitochondria use pH gradients for energy production. This information is produced by a subsystem, the mitochondria. The cell, a higher system, does not question this information; it accepts it directly and does not develop alternative energy production pathways for mitochondrial energy production. The formula provided by the mitochondria is good enough that it becomes unalternative at the cellular level. This creates a cellular dogma.
As a result, two conditions are required for a form of knowledge to become a dogma:
- The authority to produce knowledge must be delegated to a higher system;
- The knowledge must function well enough that alternatives are forgotten.
Dogma is working knowledge that has no alternative. In other words, epistemological forgetting is not just forgetting something; it is the deactivation and a historicization of all other forms when one form of knowledge takes over.
Summary Findings:
When positional knowledge and epistemological forgetting are considered together, it becomes clear why every deductive analysis leaves a missing piece. The mind can never master an event in all its dimensions; because it is both positioned and inevitably loses some relations during each analysis. For this reason, deduction cannot provide a complete explanation; it only suggests a limited model.
This model can be functional, and is often correct enough. However, it always contains a “dark area.” This darkness is not the area of error, but of inaccessibility. Instead of filling this gap, the human mind often produces an illusion of wholeness without realizing its existence. Thus, that missing piece is either forgotten without being noticed or covered by dogmas.
As a result, deduction is not only a method of analysis, but also a limited form of knowledge. The fact that it leaves an “empty cube” each time is not its deficiency, but its nature.
Dogma (Module) and the Ethics of Cancer
Dogma (or module) is a previously resolved and fixed form of information that is repeated without question within the system. This information does not have to be wrong; however, the fact that it is no longer questioned is a product of its guarantee of working. As long as the system operates, this information element comes into play without being rethought. This structure emerges as a reflex in the nervous system, as an "if" command (or other defined commands) in the software paradigm, and as fixed response mechanisms in biological systems. Dogma or module are the energy-saving information blocks of the system.
A cell behaves dogmatically (i.e. shaped by modularity) according to the information it has while the surrounding microenvironment (niche) is fixed. It is clear how it will respond to which signal. This information can be processed without thinking; because the system is already fixed on this information. However, this situation changes when the niche is disrupted.
Environmental factors such as inflammation, toxicity or chronic stress disrupt the stability of the microorder to which the cell belongs. Reflexive responses are no longer sufficient; the cell has to "think" for the first time. This thinking is not only a biological adaptation; it is also an ethical crisis. Because the cell can no longer apply the principles that previously worked for the structure of the tissue it belongs to, its own task, and resource sharing. In this case, no matter what stable solution it develops, it will conflict with another value of the system. This is an ethical conflict.
In this conflict, the system is gradually reduced to the most basic thing that can be worked on: existence. Energy is needed to exist, resources are needed for energy, and for resources, action must be taken without seeking harmony with other cells. This is a systemic ethical entropy situation: that is, the collapse of the system to a level where it loses its sustainability principle and focuses only on its existence.
This type of behavior is cancer.
Cancer cannot be explained only by genetic mutations. In this article, cancer is considered as the ethical information collapse that occurs when the information system of a cell collapses and a new system cannot be established. When the cell loses its old modules or they no longer work, the dogma falls apart. However, despite the collapse of the system, the cell creates a new information system with the instinct to protect its existence. This system is no longer compatible with its environment; it is defined only by its own reproduction. This is the core of a new dogma: cancer's own internal law.
As a result, ethical collapse and systemic disintegration are the same phenomenon. Cancer is a system that has abandoned all functions except the instinct of existence. In the model presented in this article, this situation is framed by the following proposition:
"When the dogma is broken, if a new balance cannot be established; the system is reduced to merely maintaining its own existence. This gives rise to a new but pathological dogma." In this sense, cancer is structurally the result of ethical entropy: the knowledge system has collapsed, but consciousness (or the system) is still trying to live. Meaning has been lost, but existence continues. And this existence cannot stop evolving into a new knowledge system (i.e. a new dogma).
Let's complete the model. As you can see, there is an event and I am looking at it as an observer. I have divided it into pieces. These pieces are my module information, in other words, my "certain" information at a level where I do not need to divide it again. Another piece is there as an unknown piece. I have observed the event as a whole. Take a good look at piece Y. What is the function of piece Y in this event? To transform piece X into an event. Let's go one step further → it is the creator/meaning of the event. The 4 known pieces do not create an event, but an event can be created with the accompanying Y. Well, doesn't this Y always have to be there, as I have discussed before? Deduction always has to leave a gap. The piece you see as Y is the creator in the event. It is necessarily there. It has the function of making X an event. The human mind automatically perceives the correlation between the event and X as causality. This is an incomplete regression analysis. Because what makes X an event can only be Y itself. If X were completed with Y/2 or Z, it would turn into another event. For this reason, there is no causality between X and the event, only correlation. Causality can only be mentioned when X is completed with Y. However, since we have seen the event and after removing X from the event, our aim will be to reach the event from X, Y must be there as the causality part/creator/meaning/purpose -whatever you want to call it-. This automatically puts part Y in the "creator" position.
Mathematical Model: Creator/Meaning Function
Let’s now turn this into a mathematical model and prove why meaning/creator is perceptually necessary and nihilism is structurally impossible. I define the creator as a function “1/1+x”. X represents the knowns and 1 represents the unknown part. (y/x+y is the original function but I fixed it as y=1 because it would be harder to understand and it wouldn’t change anything. I explained below why it wouldn’t change anything.)
Yes, our function is here. As you can see, we are talking about a curve that goes towards zero but will never reach zero. What does this mean, let's take a derivative and see.
As you can see, the derivative of the creator function tells us how fast the gap is closing, and as you can see, the closing is ever slower. As systems accumulate knowledge, the speed at which their questions are solved slows down. Insight turns into friction. Progress requires effort. Systems slow down not because they fail, but because they approach unattainable clarity.
Let’s continue with the integral of the function.
The integral of the meaning/creator function represents the accumulated weight of incompleteness – the sedimentation of everything that has not been resolved. As a system acquires knowledge, it also acquires the memory of what it has not been able to resolve. This is not a crisis. It is the architecture of meaning itself.
We do not suffer from a lack of answers.
We suffer from the accumulation of questions that are always left behind.
Consider a human life. At birth, x=0 and the gap is complete: f(0)=1. The baby knows nothing and understands nothing. As life progresses – through experience, culture, education – x increases. The person becomes “wiser.”
But paradoxically, when x→∞, the individual does not feel complete. Instead, they feel the weight of everything they still do not know. The gap narrows but becomes more certain. The unknown becomes more understandable.
F(x) is therefore not just a model of knowledge.
It is a model of existential orientation.
As the unknown shrinks, meaning does not disappear. It intensifies.
Because the presence of nothingness - no matter how small - remains a necessary condition for deriving meaning.
We do not pursue meaning because we are ignorant.
We pursue it because we are asymptotically aware that ignorance is permanent.
Finally, we need to examine nihilism. If God is dead, if meaning is dead, then 1/x+1=0. So how does the meaning/creator function become zero?
Nihilism is the limit function of meaning/the creator. And for all real values of x, it is greater than zero.
“Therefore, nihilism is structurally impossible.”
We often imagine that the collapse of metaphysics leads to freedom, that when we abandon belief we abandon illusion. Nihilism presents itself as ultimate clarity: a world that is seen and found empty.
But this is not clarity. It is a projection. Nihilism assumes that knowledge can be completed, that the entire structure of reality can be viewed, judged, and found meaningless. It is based on a false premise: the assumption that epistemic closure is possible.
As we have seen, every system of knowledge, whether biological, cognitive, or artificial, is structured around an irreducible void. This void is not accidental. It is constitutive. The missing piece is not a mistake to be corrected; it is the condition that makes meaning necessary.
The function of meaning arises precisely because the system never completes itself. The final cube is never seen. The function never reaches zero. And so the system, in order to remain intelligible, produces a placeholder: a unifying force, an origin story, a creator. This creator need not be supernatural. It need not be personal. But it must exist structurally, for something must fill the void. If it is not God, it is theory. If not theory, then pattern. If not pattern, then force. But absence must be covered. And what covers absence becomes sacred—not by decree, but by function.
That is why meaning is not optional. It is not chosen. It is not arbitrarily constructed. It is what emerges when systems reach the limit of their own intelligibility. Meaning is the wound left by the limit of knowing.
And that is why nihilism is structurally impossible. Not because we are too afraid to embrace it, but because no system—no brain, no machine, no society—can function without completing the pattern. Even in denial we construct meaning. Even in collapse we seek coherence. There is no view from anywhere. There is no system outside the need for sensation.
We do not discover meaning. We do not invent it.
We need it.
Because no structure can survive without closing the gap it cannot resolve.
And in that veil, a creator’s idea—of coherence—reappears. Not because it is true.
But because there must be something there.
Meaning is not a value. It is the limiting behavior of cognition. It is not a goal we reach, but an asymptotic curve we cannot escape.
My Self-Criticisms and Responses
1) Why is the numerator 1? Wouldn’t using y / (x + y) yield a more accurate graph?
In fact, using an unknown variable (y) instead of a fixed value (1) in the numerator may seem like a more accurate mathematical representation. Especially considering that y is interpreted as “unknown”, the expression y/(x+y) indicates both an intuitive and systematic structure. However, in this case, the graph becomes three-dimensional, operations such as derivative and integral become complicated, and the intellectual connection I want to establish with the target audience of the article may weaken.
The purpose of this article is not only to show the mathematical accuracy of a formula; but also to present the structural thought behind it in a way that everyone can understand. Therefore, the value 1 in the numerator is used as a heuristic device. It can be thought of as a kind of fixed observer or the constancy of the desire for absolute knowledge.
Theoretically, using 1 instead of the value y does not disrupt the main trend. Because as the system grows, x increases and y decreases; therefore, the function y/(x+y) also approaches 0 asymptotically. The limit, derivative and integral behaviors remain the same in this structure.
From another perspective, if we consider a disaster scenario centered on the observer—for example, an epistemological collapse—x decreases, knowledge disappears, and the graph returns to the beginning. But it still follows the same functional curve. Therefore, the expression presented here is both a carrier of the ideological model and a facilitator of conceptual expression. If there is a demand in the future, I can also create a version of this article with detailed explanations.
2) If inductive reasoning doesn’t function in information-processing systems, how do you explain reflexes?
Reflex response -again- is actually a system that is solved by deduction and answered by induction, but it is an information processing model that can be misunderstood due to the time scale. Let's give an example of shivering in cold weather = feeling cold. The coldness of the air is perceived by the receptors. And a response is started to be sought. The stimulus is broken down by deduction and modules are reached. Modules are combined and the response is given. Again, the same model. Why is this understood as induction because the response time is close to zero in the human time scale, but not in the cellular scale.
Let's examine the subject with an example.
The entire code essentially represents a “shivering” function.
However, when we look at this function, we see that it contains other structures like def, if, else, and return. Each of these is itself a submodule.
Theoretically, we could question what the if command actually does—just as we might question why a cell begins to shiver when exposed to cold.
But in the paradigm of software, if has become a dogma: its function is fixed, indivisible, unquestioned (as long as it works).
A similar structure has emerged in humans through evolutionary processes.
When faced with cold, cells and subsystems sense the environment and are triggered by a “condition met” command, much like an if statement.
As a result, the system directly produces the physical reflex corresponding to the return "Shiver" command.
In other words, evolution has modularized this process.
Just as the if command in software has become an indivisible structure,
shivering in response to cold has become a modular, unquestioned reflex.
This module is no longer broken down because it has proven effective, become fixed, and can now be directly executed.
This is precisely where the pseudo-perception I mentioned earlier reappears: a feeling of induction that seems to bypass deduction.
But in reality, what has happened is that a prior deductive process has been modularized.
The organism receives the stimulus, reaches the module through deduction, and executes it.
Because the time it takes to reach the module from the stimulus is nearly zero on the human time scale, it creates the illusion that deduction has been skipped.
General Summary
1) A person can only begin to perceive through deduction
2) Knowledge is positional and useful knowledge becomes dogmatic as it passes to the upper system
3) For this reason, deduction always leaves missing pieces
4) The mind must perceive the event as a whole because it must take a position accordingly
5) The mind completes the missing piece as creator/meaning, this is the automatic conversion of correlation into causality and is necessary.
6) For this reason, creator/meaning is necessary and nihilism is structurally impossible.
Glossary of Terms
It is the situation where knowledge is shaped according to the physical, mental and historical position of the observer. No observation can be made from a universal point of view; therefore, knowledge is always produced and limited according to a certain position.
- Epistemological Forgetting:
Every production of knowledge leaves out some relationships. This forgetting is not an individual weakness, but a structural limit of thought. Moreover, when knowledge is transferred to a higher system (for example, to artificial intelligence), alternative paths become dysfunctional and ahistorical. This process prepares the ground for dogma.
It is the mind's belief that it has reached knowledge through induction. In reality, the selection of parts and the meaning have already been determined by deduction. This is the illusion of induction.
It is the situation where all ethical principles of an entity become dysfunctional as a result of environmental or systemic deterioration. Values conflict and only the drive to maintain existence remains. This is the thermodynamic collapse of the ethical system.
A previously resolved and fixed form of knowledge that is repeated without question within the system. It does not have to be false knowledge; it is used without fragmentation because it is useful. This structure is seen in both biological reflexes (e.g. shivering in the cold), software logic (e.g. the “if” command), and social/cultural norms (e.g. “God exists”, “the law must be obeyed”).
The mind does not apply re-analysis to these structures. Because the system is stable enough not to need to question that form of knowledge again. Dogma or module are information stacks that save the system energy.
In the context of writing, it is not thought; it is the type of knowledge that does not require rethinking because it has been thought before. It works like a reflex: fast, automatic and energy-saving.
- Creator/Meaning Function:
It is the function expressed mathematically as 1 / (1 + x). Here, "1" represents the unknown and "x" represents the known. This structure defines the function of meaning to close the gap in the system and shows the structural impossibility of nihilism.
It is the missing piece that every deductive model inevitably leaves. It arises from the limitation of perception. It is the necessary ground of meaning, not nihilism.