self and reality relationship

From: jimruttshow8596

The philosophical development known as Immanent Metaphysics begins as an inquiry into the nature of the relationship between self and reality [02:35:54]. This relationship is considered the essence of the study [02:42:01].

The Plane of Perception and the Self

The concept of the “plane of perception” is used as a rhetorical device to understand perception [03:05:01]. On one side is everything that is perceived, and on the other is the self that performs the perception [03:09:01]. The notion of the subjective, or consciousness (the first-person perspective), is wrapped up in this concept of the self [03:16:01]. The study uses the notions of “self” and “world” as a method to understand what perception is [03:30:01].

To illustrate, one can imagine an “envelope” around a person; everything crossing through this envelope, from the surface of the skin to the world, is examined [03:49:01]. Whether the interior of this envelope is regarded as part of the real, objective world or as something “other” is an assumption that can be made later [04:05:01].

Subjectivity, Objectivity, and Ontology

The relationship between the subjective and the objective is considered ontologically real and worthy of study [04:37:01]. This relationship is akin to that between the “measure” and the “measured” [04:56:01].

In the scientific method, the measurement process itself is treated as a fundamental concept [05:08:01]. We impute the thing being measured and what is doing the measuring [05:17:01]. The ontological process of making a measurement or observation is the grounding basis for identifying that “there is something” [05:45:01]. For something to exist, there must be a possibility of engagement, confirmable interaction, and a repeatable observable aspect [06:41:01]. This implies that the notion of interaction is a prior concept for establishing existence, reality, or objectivity [07:09:01].

Perceiver, Perceived, and Perceiving

These concepts overlap to describe perception:

• Perceiver: The observer [07:31:01].
• Perceiving: The process of perception itself [07:38:01].
• Perceived: The content of the perception [07:39:01].

This can be modeled as a communication channel: a signal-producing world sends a signal through a communication channel, which is received by the self [08:07:01]. The perceiver is on the receiving end, the channel has dynamics, and the flowing information represents the perceived [08:22:01].

Choice and Causality

A central idea is comparing choice in the subjective realm to causality in the objective realm [08:47:01]. The notion of self is characterized by choice [09:02:01].

• Determinism vs. Causality: Mathematical knowledge often has a deterministic character (e.g., 2 = 1+1, fully specified to infinite detail) [09:41:01]. Scientific knowledge, however, is causal, not necessarily requiring infinite specification (e.g., clicking ‘send’ on an email results in it appearing on another screen, without needing microscopic details of electron movements) [10:18:01].
• Indeterminism/Randomness vs. Choice: This distinction parallels determinism and causality [11:27:01]. Perfect predictability (determinism) leaves no room for phenomena like free will [11:38:01]. Hard randomness is seen as meaningless [12:09:01], whereas choice is meaningful to the person making it, even if not evidentially meaningful to an external witness [12:13:01].
• Irreducible Randomness: Complex systems, like the brain, amplify subtle initial differences, making future states highly unpredictable (similar to weather phenomena) [13:01:01]. After factoring out all predictable elements (like information compression), the “unpredictable residue” from an outside perspective appears as randomness [14:32:01]. From the subjective first-person perspective, however, choices have a context and meaning that external observers might not access [15:21:01]. This “unobservability of the context of the subjective” explains the difference in meaning [15:55:01].
• Duality of Choice and Causation: Choice and causation are seen as “duals” of one another, possessing reciprocity [16:24:01]. They represent a symmetry between perfect determinism/predictability and indeterminism/non-predictability [16:51:01]. Causation is a mesoscopic/macroscopic view of regular patterns, while choice is a mesoscopic/macroscopic absence of patterns from an objective view, yet subjectively meaningful [17:05:01]. This perspective requires reconciling first-person and third-person views [17:49:01].

Interaction: More Fundamental than Existence or Creation

The universe is often conceived as existing stuff in a container (matter in space) [19:58:01]. However, the concept of the “universe” can be re-appreciated by asking “what would we need to know in order to understand all that could be known about this concept?” [20:20:01]. This requires expanding the notion to include not just space and time, but also a dimension of possibility [21:26:01].

Instead of just “thingness” (existing stuff), there’s a notion of “process” and the “factual” (what could have happened versus what did happen) [21:47:01]. Therefore, the universe can be understood through three component concepts:

1. Existence: Matter in space [22:40:01].
2. Interaction: Forces in time [22:47:01].
3. Creation: Proxy for potentiality or probability over possibility [22:53:01].

If everything about these three concepts were fully known, then everything about the universe would be known [23:01:01]. These three concepts are seen as distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable [25:30:01]. Importantly, interaction is considered more fundamental than both existence and creation [25:50:01]. Existence depends on interaction (e.g., observability to validate existence) [26:51:01]. Creation (emergence) also depends on the notion of process, which is a proxy for interaction [27:09:01].

Process as a Concept

The term “process” in this context includes more than just changes of state over time [34:31:01]. It also incorporates the notion of what could have happened instead [35:01:01]. While typically assumed to be deterministic (like in computer science) [35:09:01], the metaphysical concept of process builds in a kind of indeterminism, acknowledging probabilities and possibilities [36:42:01].

Realism and Idealism: A Relationship

The relationship between realism and idealism is considered more primal than either idea itself [33:33:01].

• Realism: Presupposes the existence of “stuff” and then considers interactions between it (e.g., causation), forming the basis of science and technology [29:20:01].
• Idealism: Presupposes the primacy of the subjective observer, where the existence of anything is contingent on an observer’s capacity to project it [29:39:01]. This connects to Kant’s idea that “the thing in itself” cannot be known directly [30:09:01].

By taking interaction as primary, and asserting that epistemology (how we know anything) is the basis of ontology (what it means to be or why anything exists) [31:33:01], the metaphysics posits that the relationship between epistemology and ontology is the foundation for both the subjective and the objective [31:54:01]. Therefore, this relationship underlies both realism (based on objectivity) and idealism (based on subjectivity) [32:36:01]. The metaphysics avoids choosing between the two, suggesting they are both valid perspectives [33:09:01].

Foundational Triplication and Type Isomorphism

The metaphysics is based on two key ideas:

1. Foundational Triplication: All that is real, and particularly the foundation of every domain, consists of at least three essential concepts [37:52:01]. These concepts, though inseparable, are always mutually distinct [38:03:01].

   • Examples:
     • Universe: Creation, Existence, Interaction [23:15:01]
     • Language: Statements, Semantics, Syntax [41:43:01]
     • Music: Intensity, Pattern, Tonality [42:47:01]
     • Reality: Choice, Change, Causation [00:59:52]
     • Perception: Perceiver, Perceived, Perceiving [01:01:23]
     • Computation: Source Code Editing, Compilation, Running Program [01:34:00]

2. Type Isomorphism: The essential concepts of each domain have similar patterns of correspondence [03:21:01]. This means the patterns of relationships between foundational concepts in one domain are the same as in another [43:52:01]. This allows for mapping concepts across different domains (e.g., intensity in music corresponds to statement in language and interaction in the universe) [46:16:01].

The Modalities: Imminent, Omniscient, Transcendent

These three words are abstractions that refer to the “types” of primal concepts [00:46:46]. They cannot be given exact, final, closed definitions, and their meaning is often expressed metaphorically [01:10:01].

• Imminent: Represents the immediate, direct, first-person, process notion [01:05:59]. It often relates to the relationship between two other concepts [01:02:08].

  • Examples: Perceiving [01:01:42], Interaction (in the universe) [00:59:15], Change (in reality) [01:00:26], Statements (in language) [00:59:12], Time (in space-time) [01:06:42].

• Omniscient: Represents a “one framework removed” perspective [01:02:25]. It’s like observing a static pattern from a remote position, knowing all its aspects without being it [01:03:29].

  • Examples: Perceived [01:01:42], Existence (in the universe) [00:59:12], Causation (in reality) [01:00:28], Syntax (in language) [00:59:20], Space (in space-time) [01:06:40].

• Transcendent: Represents something “more removed,” another framework removed, a relationship between different domains of context altogether [01:03:48]. It relates to concepts that are not directly measurable but are imputed semantic notions [01:07:32].

  • Examples: Perceiver [01:01:34], Creation (in the universe) [00:59:20], Choice (in reality) [01:00:32], Semantics (in language) [00:59:20], Possibility (in space-time) [01:06:45].

The Axioms of Immanent Metaphysics

The three axioms describe the fundamental dynamics of conceptual relationships.

Axiom 1: The Imminent is More Fundamental

“The imminent 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 concepts where dynamics in one induce phenomena in the other (e.g., electric and magnetic fields) [01:11:41]. In language, focusing heavily on syntax (omniscient) might make it harder to create semantic relationships (transcendent) to the real world, and vice versa [01:13:00]. This highlights a trade-off or reciprocal relationship where clarity in one aspect might limit clarity in the other [01:13:57].
• Imminent as Primary: The imminent concept (e.g., interaction in the universe, perceiving in perception, statements in language) represents the relational concept that effectively creates the dynamic between the omniscient and transcendent [01:14:45]. Axiom 1 acts as a “hyper-generalization” of these fundamental dynamics of relationships between concepts [01:16:35]. For example, to discuss semantics or syntax, one must use statements, making “statement” a more fundamental unit of meaningfulness [01:17:15].

Axiom 2: The Process of Actuality

“A class of the transcendent precedes an instance of the imminent; a class of the imminent precedes an instance of the omniscient; and a class of the omniscient precedes an instance of the transcendent” [01:19:10].

• Shift from Theory to Practice: Understanding Axiom 2 requires shifting from theoretical (third-person) thinking to practical (first-person) experience [01:19:51].
• Choice Example:
  1. Class of Transcendent to Instance of Imminent: To have a choice, there must be a range of potentials (a class of the transcendent, e.g., possible activities for the evening) [01:20:47]. The actual selection event (the choice itself) is an instance of the imminent (e.g., deciding to read a book) [01:28:40].
  2. Class of Imminent to Instance of Omniscient: The consequence of a choice is not contingent on a single selection but a multiplicity of component choices (a class of the imminent, e.g., picking the book, chair, time, turning pages) [01:29:06]. This results in a singularity of consequence, an instance of the omniscient (e.g., having the memory or experience of reading the book) [01:30:26].
  3. Class of Omniscient to Instance of Transcendent: The potentiality itself (e.g., the possibility of reading a book) is contingent upon a multiplicity of prior consequences or outcomes (a class of the omniscient, e.g., owning a book, having a house, knowing the language) [01:31:46]. This results in a new instance of the transcendent (the singular possibility of reading) [01:32:31].
• Computer Science Metaphor:
  • Editing source code is an omniscient operation [01:34:00].
  • Compiling the code is a transcendent process, moving from source code to machine-executable bits and bytes [01:34:05].
  • The running program (the process itself) is in the imminent domain [01:34:25].
  • This running program can then be used to edit more source code, demonstrating the cyclical nature of Axiom 2 [01:34:49].

Axiom 2 emphasizes the fundamental nature of “process” itself and requires understanding multiple, overlapped metaphors that cross domain relationships [01:35:38]. When understood directly, it moves beyond theory to become a first-hand ontological experience of the relationship between one’s personal subjective experience and the objective world [01:36:17].

Axiom 3: Distinct, Inseparable, Non-Interchangeable

“The classes [and] instances of the imminent, omniscient, and transcendent are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable” [01:37:16]. This axiom reiterates the foundational triplication principle: one cannot fully understand any of these fundamental concepts without implying or incorporating some understanding or assumption of the other two [01:37:59].

Self-Description of the Metaphysics

The three axioms correspond to the three modalities:

• Axiom 1: Has the nature of the omniscient modality [01:40:56] (describing definitions and relationships between concepts from a removed, theoretical perspective, like a photograph) [01:42:23].
• Axiom 2: Has the nature of the imminent modality [01:41:01] (describing processes from a direct, first-person perspective, moving from theory to practice) [01:43:17].
• Axiom 3: Has the nature of the transcendent modality [01:41:06] (describing the mediation and “peerage relationship” between different foundational domains, like a conversation between two people or assessing consistency across different photographs of the same person) [01:45:34].

This mapping allows the metaphysics to be “self-describing” [01:38:35]. Because the axioms describe relationships between modalities, and the axioms themselves correspond to modalities, the axioms can describe their own relationships, using the pattern to describe the pattern [01:48:07]. This closure means the metaphysics describes not just the thing described, but also the describer and the process of description itself, inclusively encompassing both the subjective and the objective [01:40:20].