immanent metaphysics

From: jimruttshow8596

Immanent Metaphysics is a philosophical framework developed by Forrest Landry, explored across multiple discussions. The term “immanent” (i-m-m-a-n-e-n-t) refers to a specific modality within this system, representing a direct, immediate, first-person process notion [01:05:40].

Core Inquiry: Self and Reality

Metaphysics begins as an inquiry into the nature of the relationship between self and reality, which is the essence of its study [02:35:48]. The concept of “self” in this context refers to a historical notion called the “plane of perception,” acting as a rhetorical device to distinguish between everything that is perceived and the self doing the perception [03:00:10]. This includes the subjective notion of consciousness or the first-person perspective [03:17:51].

The objective is to understand perception itself, as well as what it means to “cross the plane of perception” [03:36:26]. This can be conceptualized as an “envelope” around a person, where anything crossing from the surface of the skin to the world is examined, without initial assumptions about whether the interior of the envelope is part of the objective world [03:49:09].

Relationship Between Subjective and Objective

The relationship between the subjective and the objective is considered ontologically real and worthy of study [04:37:34]. This relationship is akin to that between the “measure” and the “measured” in the scientific method [04:56:06]. The ontological process of making a measurement or observation is the grounding basis for identifying that something exists [05:49:25]. If interaction is possible, observable, and repeatable, then something can be asserted to exist, be objective, or be real [06:41:07].

The notions of perceiver, perceived, and perceiving are similar distinctions:

• Perceiver: The observer [07:31:38].
• Perceiving: The process of perception itself [07:34:33].
• Perceived: The content of the perception [07:39:15].

This can be modeled as a communication channel where the world produces a signal, which travels through the channel and is received by the self [08:00:46].

Interaction as Fundamental

The universe is characterized by “stuff about creation, stuff about existence, and stuff about interaction” [08:42:02]. In this metaphysics, interaction is considered more fundamental than existence, and even more fundamental than creation [09:01:21].

Traditionally, the concept of the universe is thought of as existing “stuff in a container” (e.g., matter in space) [20:00:10]. However, this view needs expansion to include dimensions like possibility (what might have happened) beyond just time and space, especially with concepts like quantum mechanics [21:10:48]. This expansion leads to viewing the universe as defined by three concepts:

• Existence: Referring to “thingness” or existing stuff [21:47:00].
• Interaction: Referring to processes and how things bump into one another [21:50:52].
• Creation: Referring to potentiality or the notion of probability over possibility [22:52:54].

If one knew everything about these three concepts (existence, interaction, creation), then one would know everything about the universe [23:03:00]. These three concepts are seen as distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable [25:34:25]. Interaction is considered more fundamental because the concept of existence and creation depend on it [27:04:12]. For example, to validate that something exists, an interaction (observability) is required [26:56:06]. Similarly, “creation” often implies emergence from another domain, which is dependent on the notion of process, a proxy for interaction [27:32:00].

Realism and Idealism

The relationship between realism and idealism is considered more primal than either concept alone [19:15:35].

• Realism: Presupposes the existence of “stuff” and its interactions, aligning with the development of science and technology [29:20:06].
• Idealism: Prioritizes the notion of the subjective observer, where existence itself is contingent on the capacity of an observer to project it [29:39:27].

Immanent metaphysics posits that because interaction (or observation) is more primary than both the perceiver and the perceived, the notion of interaction itself is primary [31:14:00]. This implies that epistemology (how we know anything) is the basis of ontology (what it means to be or why anything exists) [31:33:00]. The relationship between epistemology and ontology is a dynamic that connects them [31:56:06]. Therefore, the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity (and thus between idealism and realism) is more fundamental than either concept on its own [32:36:06]. This approach allows for agnosticism regarding which one is “first” [33:42:04].

The Concept of Process

The term “process” in this metaphysics includes more than just changes of state over time [34:30:17]. While it involves time and patterns in space, it also incorporates the notion that “something else could have happened instead” [35:01:00]. Unlike the deterministic view in computer science, this definition of process builds in a kind of indeterminism [36:45:30]. For example, an engineer designs systems to make things “must happen,” but in reality, things don’t always go as planned [36:19:00]. Process, therefore, also involves probabilities and possibilities [36:38:00].

Foundational Triplication and Type Isomorphism

The philosophical development of this metaphysics is based on two core ideas:

1. Foundational Triplication: The idea that all that is real, and particularly the foundation of every domain, is modeled in terms of at least three essential concepts [37:52:30]. These concepts, though inseparable, are always mutually distinct [38:03:00]. This is observed by analyzing the semantic definitions within any field of study, tracing concepts down to their most abstract forms [40:37:00].

   • Example: Language: Semantics, statements, and syntax [41:43:00].
   • Example: Music: Intensity, melody/harmony (pattern), and tonality (instrument sound) [42:32:00].
   • Example: Universe: Creation, existence, and interaction [45:10:00]. If any one of these three concepts is completely absent, the other two are also absent [43:24:00].

2. Type Isomorphism: The recognition that the essential concepts of each domain have similar patterns of correspondence [38:10:00]. “Isomorphism” means “same shape” [44:31:00]. This means the patterns of relationships between foundational concepts in one domain (e.g., language) are the same as those in another (e.g., the universe) [44:05:00]. This allows for developing correspondences between concepts across different domains, based on their “typology” [46:40:00]. This becomes powerful because it allows understanding almost any topic by mapping its foundational concepts to those of another well-understood field [56:14:00].

The Modalities: Immanent, Omniscient, Transcendent

The three roles or types that domain primal concepts have with respect to one another are called modalities: Immanent, Omniscient, and Transcendent [47:26:00]. These are abstractions, like data types in computer science (e.g., integer, string) [46:50:00]. They represent the most primal concepts of what a concept is [58:37:00]. No exact, closed definitions can be given for them outside of their implicit nature within the axioms themselves, often expressed metaphorically [01:10:01].

Here are examples of how concepts map to these modalities:

Domain	Immanent	Omniscient	Transcendent
Universe	Interaction	Existence	Creation
Language	Statement	Syntax	Semantics
Real	Change	Causation	Choice
Perception	Perceiving	Perceived	Perceiver
Experience	Time (first-person sense)	Space (observed totality, framework removed)	Possibility (abstract semantic conception)
Perspective	First Person	Third Person	Second Person

(Note: The transcript explicitly corrects the mapping for Language, Universe, and Real, as well as Perception and Perspective.)

• Immanent: Always represents a relationship between two other concepts, or a situation with zero or one context [01:08:08]. It signifies a very direct, immediate, first-person process notion [01:05:40].
• Omniscient: Represents something that is one framework removed, like observing a static pattern from a remote position [01:03:36]. It implies knowing all aspects of something even if you are not it [01:03:41].
• Transcendent: Represents something two or more frameworks removed, a relationship between different domains of context altogether [01:03:59]. It signifies an abstraction that goes beyond direct observation or single events, such as the concept of “same person” across multiple photographs [01:05:17].

The Axioms

The axioms describe the fundamental dynamics of the relationships between concepts at the foundation of domains [01:16:42].

Axiom 1: The Immanent is more fundamental than the Omniscient and/or the Transcendent; the Omniscient and the Transcendent are Conjugate [01:11:03].

• Conjugate Relationship: This refers to a hyperbolic relationship where a dynamic in one domain induces a phenomenon in another, and vice versa [01:12:00]. The more defined one is, the less clear the other may become in its definition. There’s a trade-off [01:13:41].
  • Example: Electric and Magnetic Fields: Something in an electric field induces a magnetic phenomenon, and vice versa [01:11:41].
  • Example: Time and Frequency Domains: A sine wave in the time domain corresponds to a pulse in the frequency domain [01:12:06].
  • Example: Syntax and Semantics in Language: Focusing heavily on elegant syntax might make it harder to create semantic relationships to the irregular real world, and vice versa [01:13:26].
• Immanent’s Primacy: The relationship of conjugation itself is the third, imminent concept [01:14:51]. The immanent concept (e.g., “process,” “interaction,” “statement”) is more fundamental because the other two (omniscient and transcendent) implicitly rely on it for their definition or expression [01:17:01]. For example, one cannot talk about semantics or syntax without making use of statements [01:17:04], and a definition of a term is itself a statement [01:18:20].

Axiom 2: A class of the Transcendent precedes an instance of the Immanent; a class of the Immanent precedes an instance of the Omniscient; and a class of the Omniscient precedes an instance of the Transcendent [01:19:12].

This axiom describes the dynamic flow of process, shifting from the domain of theory to the domain of practice, and from a third-person to a first-person perspective [01:19:54].

• Example: Choice: To have a choice, three elements are needed: a range of potentials (Transcedent), an actual selection event (Immanent), and a consequence (Omniscient) [01:20:44].
  • Class of Transcendent to Instance of Immanent: A “class of potentials” (e.g., options for dinner) leads to an “instance of selection” (e.g., choosing to read a book) [01:28:40].
  • Class of Immanent to Instance of Omniscient: The single selection event (e.g., reading a book) is actually comprised of a “multiplicity of choices” (e.g., picking the book, chair, page turns) which are instances of the immanent, leading to a singular “consequence” (e.g., having read the book, a memory) which is an instance of the omniscient [01:30:26]. Causality is never a single antecedent to a single consequent but a plurality to a plurality [01:31:01].
  • Class of Omniscient to Instance of Transcendent: The potentiality (e.g., ability to read a book) is contingent upon a multiplicity of prior consequences or outcomes (e.g., owning a book, having a house, learning language) [01:31:46]. These prior consequences, being instances of the omniscient, lead to an instance of the transcendent, which is the possibility itself.
• Computer Science Metaphor:
  • Omniscient: Editing source code (a static pattern, observed from a framework removed) [01:34:00].
  • Transcendent: Compiling the code (moving from source code domain to runtime/executable domain) [01:34:05].
  • Immanent: The running program itself (the actual process) [01:34:32]. This dynamic illustrates a continuous loop: Omniscient (editing) → Transcendent (compiling) → Immanent (running) → Omniscient (editing more code using the running program) [01:33:33].

Axiom 2 Understanding

Understanding Axiom 2 is considered one of the most difficult aspects of this metaphysics [01:29:27]. Once understood directly, it moves from a theory to a first-hand ontological experience about the relationship between personal subjective experience and the objective world [01:36:19]. This can be “uncomfortable” if one is too firmly reified in a purely realist perspective [01:36:47].

Axiom 3: The classes and instances of the Immanent, Omniscient, and Transcendent are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable [01:19:16].

This axiom reiterates the principle of foundational triplication, stating that one cannot fully understand any one of the fundamental concepts of a domain without implying or incorporating some understanding or assumption of the other two [01:37:30].

Relationship between Axioms and Modalities

A unique feature of this metaphysics is that the axioms themselves correspond to the modalities [01:40:51]:

• Axiom 1: Has the nature of the Omniscient modality [01:40:56]. It describes the structure of concepts in a domain from a “framework removed” (third-person) perspective, like observing a photograph [01:44:00].
• Axiom 2: Has the nature of the Immanent modality [01:40:59]. It describes process and requires a first-person perspective for understanding (e.g., making a choice) [01:43:56].
• Axiom 3: Has the nature of the Transcendent modality [01:41:02]. It describes the foundational relationships between different domains as a “peerage relationship,” akin to a second-person conversation [01:46:18].

This correspondence allows the metaphysics to be self-describing: the axioms describe their own relationships, using the pattern to describe the pattern [01:48:11]. This closure means the metaphysics includes the describer as well as the thing described, and the process of description itself [01:40:24]. It moves beyond mere epistemology into an ontological process [01:39:41].