Tubegraph

subjective and objective reality

14 min read

From: jimruttshow8596
The following article discusses the Nature of Reality and Perception as explored in the Immanent Metaphysics framework by Forrest Landry, focusing on the interplay between subjective and objective perspectives.

Defining Reality: Self and World

Metaphysics, as defined in this framework, begins as an inquiry into the nature of the relationship between self and reality [02:35:37]. This relationship is considered the essence of the study [02:42:47].

A historical notion, referred to as the “plane of perception,” serves as a rhetorical device to separate “everything that we perceive” on one hand from the “self that is doing the perception” on the other [03:00:57]. This concept of the self encompasses the subjective experience, the notion of consciousness, and the “first person perspective” [03:17:18].

The discussion aims to understand what perception is as a concept, by using the notions of self and world as a method [03:36:12]. This involves considering what “crosses the envelope” of a person – from the surface of the skin to the world [03:52:00]. The question of whether the interior of this “envelope” (the self) is part of the objective world is an assumption that can be made later [04:05:14]. Many researchers in the scientific study of consciousness theory would assert that the self is part of the world [04:26:26].

Ontological Reality of Subjective-Objective Relationship

The relationship between the subjective and the objective is considered “ontologically real and worthy of study” [04:37:00]. This relationship is central to the work [04:48:00].

It is analogous to the relationship between the “measure and the measured” in the scientific method [04:55:00]. The notion of measurement itself is treated as a fundamental concept [05:12:00]. When making measurements, there is an “imputing” of the thing being measured and the thing doing the measuring [05:17:00].

The ontological process of making a measurement or observation is the fundamental basis for identifying that something exists [05:49:00]. This includes the notion that there is a measurement, something measured, and someone measuring [06:05:06].

If an interaction can occur with something, if it can be measured in a confirmable and repeatable way, then its existence, objectivity, or reality can be asserted [06:41:42]. In all these cases, the “notion of interaction” is considered a prior concept for establishing existence, reality, or objectivity [07:11:11].

Perceiver, Perceived, and Perceiving

These three concepts describe the elements of perception:

Perceiving (the process) associates a content within a subjective context, which receives content from an objective context [07:46:00]. This can be modeled as a communication channel, where a “signal producing world” sends a signal through a channel, received by the self [08:08:00]. The perceiver is on the receiving end, the channel has a dynamic, and the information flowing through the channel is the perceived [08:22:00].

Choice, Causality, and the Nature of Self

The concept of “choice” is central to understanding the nature of the subjective [09:00:00]. The notion of self is characterized in terms of choice [09:05:00]. Choice in the subjective realm is compared to causality in the objective realm [08:47:00].

The relationship between determinism (characteristic of mathematical knowledge) and causality (characteristic of scientific knowledge) is analogous to the relationship between “perfect randomness” (or indeterminism) and choice [10:12:00].

  • Deterministic: Mathematical knowledge (e.g., 2 = 1+1, fully specified to infinite detail) [09:41:00].
  • Causal: Scientific knowledge (e.g., sending an email – a series of things happen without needing microscopic detail) [10:18:00].

Unlike hard randomness, which is meaningless, choice is considered meaningful to the person making it, even if not evidentially meaningful to external observers [12:09:00]. Complex systems, like the brain, exhibit “irreducible randomness” from the perceiver’s point of view due to sensitivity to initial conditions and dynamic amplification of subtle differences [13:01:00]. What is left after factoring out predictability (information compression) appears as randomness externally [14:32:00].

From an external perspective, choices might seem to result from or come from randomness [15:15:00]. However, from the subjective, first-person perspective, choices have a context and are understood within that subjective context, even if external observers lack access to it and cannot see connections between past and future choices [15:22:00].

Choice and causation are viewed as “duals of one another,” exhibiting a reciprocity [16:19:00]. The degree to which there are unpredictable phenomena (like quantum mechanics) indicates a symmetry between determinism and indeterminism [16:29:00]. Causation is a “mesoscopic or macroscopic perspective” of regular patterns, while choice is an “absence of patterns” from an objective viewpoint, though subjectively meaningful [17:05:00].

This requires a reconciliation of first-person and third-person perspectives [17:49:00]. Objective knowledge, from measurement and scientific processes, is observable and repeatable [17:55:00]. Choice, on the other hand, is defined more in terms of “continuity” and “connectivity” rather than “symmetry” or “regular pattern” [18:06:00].

Interaction as Fundamental

The universe is characterized by “stuff about creation,” “stuff about existence,” and “stuff about interaction” [18:40:00]. “Interaction” is proposed as more fundamental than “existence,” and even more fundamental than “creation” [18:51:00].

Traditionally, the concept of the universe refers to “existing stuff in a kind of container” (matter in space) [19:58:00]. However, this view needs to be expanded to include “process” and “possibility” (what could have happened) beyond just actual events in time and space [21:10:00].

If one understood everything about existence (matter in space), interactions (forces in time), and creation (potentiality or probability), then one would understand everything about the universe [22:40:00]. Thus, the concept of universe is subsumed by the “triple concepts of existence, interaction, and creation” [23:09:00]. These three concepts are considered “distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable” (Axiom Three of the metaphysics) [25:30:00].

Specifically, the notion of interaction is considered more fundamental because both existence and creation depend on it [27:32:00]. For something to exist, there must be an observability or interaction to validate it [26:53:00]. Creation, or emergence from one domain to another, is dependent on the notion of process, which is a proxy for interaction [27:19:00]. This establishes interaction as more fundamental than both existence and creation from a definitional basis (Axiom One) [27:51:00].

Realism, Idealism, and Epistemology

The statement “the relationship between realism and idealism is itself considerably more primal than both the notions of realism or idealism” [19:15:00] is a “head twister” for naive realists [19:41:00].

  • Realist Perspective: Presupposes the existence of “stuff” and then considers interactions between that stuff [29:17:00]. This is based on causation and aligns with the development of science and technology [29:29:00]. It posits that matter exists first, and mind may emerge as an epiphenomenon of brains [30:46:00].
  • Idealist Perspective: Asserts that the notion of the subjective observer is primary [29:39:00]. The existence of anything “out there” is contingent upon an observer’s capacity to “project out” that notion [29:51:00]. Drawing on Kant, the “thing in itself” cannot be known directly, only indirectly through apprehension [30:05:06]. This leads to the primacy of the subjective (“I think, therefore I am”), making everything else potentially doubtful [30:19:00]. It posits that mind exists first, and matter may then be known [30:41:00].

The Immanent Metaphysics posits that interaction (specifically, observation/measurement) is more primary than both the perceiver and the perceived [31:10:00]. This means the epistemology (how we know anything) is the basis of the ontology (what exists) [31:33:00]. The dynamic relationship between epistemology and ontology is how we come to have the concept of real things or a self-observing self [31:51:00].

If realism is based on objectivity and idealism on subjectivity, then anything that fundamentally relates subjectivity and objectivity (the epistemic process) will be the basis of the ontological nature of both the subjective and objective, and therefore the basis of both realism and idealism [32:36:00]. This framework suggests one does not have to choose between realism and idealism; the relationship between them is more fundamental [33:01:00].

Process in Metaphysics

The term “process” in this context is broader than its usual definition of “changes of state” over time, which often implies determinism [34:29:00]. While processes in computer science are thought of as deterministic, in the real world, things are never perfectly predictable [35:32:00].

This broader notion of process includes:

  • Changes of state: A time element where a state changes from one to another [34:33:00].
  • Patterns in space: Characterizing patterns in initial and subsequent states [34:46:00].
  • Possibility and probability: The idea that “could have been something else that happened instead” [35:01:00].

Thus, the notion of process incorporates an “indeterminism built into it” that is not always explicitly stated [36:42:00].

Foundations of Immanent Metaphysics: Axioms and Modalities

The Immanent Metaphysics is built on two core ideas:

  1. Foundational Triplication: The idea that “all that is real,” and specifically the foundation of “each and every domain,” is modeled in terms of at least three essential concepts [37:52:00]. These concepts are “inseparable” but “mutually distinct” [38:03:00].
  2. Type Isomorphism: The idea that the essential concepts of each domain have “similar patterns of correspondence” [38:10:00].

A “domain of study” has a collection of defined terms with patterns of definitional relationships [40:17:00]. Semantic analysis reveals that there are “at least three primal concepts” necessary for the basis of any field [41:09:00].

For example:

  • Universe: Its primal concepts are creation, existence, and interaction [48:33:00].
  • Language: Its primal concepts are statements, semantics, and syntax [48:42:00].
  • Music: Its primal concepts are intensity, pattern (melody/harmony), and tonality (instrument sound) [42:32:00]. If any one of these is completely absent, the other two are also absent [43:24:00].

Modalities: Imminent, Omniscient, Transcendent

The “patterns of the relationships” between these foundational concepts follow an “underlying template pattern” [43:52:00]. This pattern can be described abstractly, forming the axioms and modalities in metaphysics [44:17:00].

The names given to the three roles or “modalities” that domain primal concepts have are: Imminent, Omniscient, and Transcendent [47:26:00]. These are “abstractions” that refer to types [46:50:00].

Examples of modalities for different concepts:

  • Perceiver, Perceived, Perceiving:
  • Objective, Subjective, Relationship between Objective and Subjective:
  • Choice, Change, Causation (as elements of the domain of “what is real”):
  • Universe (Creation, Existence, Interaction):
  • Language (Statements, Semantics, Syntax):

“Everywhere that we’re talking about a relationship between two other concepts, that’s going to be an imminent concept, or where there is essentially… zero or one context to to understand that. Whereas if I’m looking at omniscient, I’m looking at something which is essentially one framework removed… Whereas transcendent is going to be more removed again, it’s going to be another framework removed even more farther away…” [01:02:08]

The modalities cannot be given “exact and final closed complete definitions” apart from those implicit in the axioms and their theorems [01:10:01]. Their meaning must often be expressed metaphorically [01:10:22].

The Axioms

The three axioms describe the fundamental relationships between the modalities:

Axiom One: Primacy of the Imminent

“The imminent is more fundamental than the omniscient and or the transcendent. The omniscient and the transcendent are conjugate.” [01:11:03]

This means that the immediate, direct experience (imminent) is more fundamental than the more remote, conceptual frameworks (omniscient) or abstract, cross-domain concepts (transcendent) [01:11:03].

The “conjugate” relationship (e.g., electric and magnetic fields, time and frequency domains) means that more clarity or definition in one (omniscient or transcendent) leads to less clarity or a different dynamic in the other, and vice-versa [01:11:38]. They have a “reciprocal relationship in the degree of definition” [01:14:12]. The imminent concept itself is this relational concept [01:14:48].

For language, statements (imminent) are more fundamental than syntax (omniscient) and semantics (transcendent) [01:16:50]. One cannot discuss semantics or syntax without using statements [01:17:01]. A definition of a term is itself a statement [01:18:22]. The “statement as the unit of meaningfulness” becomes apparent [01:18:32].

Axiom Two: The Flow of Process

“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]

Understanding Axiom Two is considered one of the most difficult aspects of this metaphysics [01:19:27]. It describes the flow of “process” in a first-person sense, moving from theory to practice [01:19:51].

Using the example of choice:

  1. Class of Transcendent to Instance of Imminent: A “class of potentials” (transcendent, e.g., all possible activities for the evening) precedes an “actual selection event” (instance of imminent, e.g., deciding to read a book) [01:28:04].
  2. Class of Imminent to Instance of Omniscient: A “class of selections” (a multiplicity of imminent choices, e.g., picking the book, sitting in a chair, turning pages) results in a “singularity of consequence” (instance of omniscient, e.g., the memory of reading the book, a change in one’s state) [01:30:26]. Causality is never one-to-one, but a plurality of antecedents to a plurality of consequences [01:31:01].
  3. Class of Omniscient to Instance of Transcendent: A “multiplicity of prior consequences” (a class of omniscient, e.g., owning a book, having a house, knowing English) makes a single possibility (instance of transcendent, e.g., the option to read a book tonight) contingent [01:31:48].

This describes a “plural to singular, plural to singular” flow around a dynamic ring of ongoing choices [01:32:50]. It’s a “flow from potentiality to actuality” [01:24:01]. Measurement is a flow from objective to subjective, while choice is a flow from subjective to objective [01:25:25].

“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]

This axiom describes the process of transformation and relationship between different aspects of reality. It’s not about object-oriented programming instantiation directly, but a deeper metaphysical flow. Understanding it requires thinking in “multiple overlapped metaphors” that cross domain relationships [01:35:38].

Axiom Three: Distinct, Inseparable, Non-Interchangeable

“The classes instances of the imminent, omniscient, and transcendent are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable.” [01:16:16]

This axiom reinforces the idea of foundational triplication [01:38:00]. One cannot fully understand any single fundamental concept of a domain without implying or incorporating some understanding of the other two [01:37:30]. For example, the universe cannot be understood without all three concepts of creation, existence, and interaction, and neither can any one of those three be understood in isolation [01:37:46].

Axioms and Modalities in Relation to Self-Description

There is a mapping between the modalities and the axioms themselves, allowing the metaphysics to be “self-describing” [01:38:24]. This capacity for a system of metaphysics to describe itself is a “criteria of correctness or at least a criteria of quality” [01:38:59].

  • Axiom One: Has the nature of the omniscient modality [01:40:56]. It describes definitions and relationships between concepts from a “framework removed” (third-person) perspective, like observing a photograph [01:42:21].
  • Axiom Two: Has the nature of the imminent modality [01:41:00]. It describes “process” from a “first person perspective” [01:43:20]. It characterizes the actual action of being in the world where theory might not perfectly predict practice [01:44:45].
  • Axiom Three: Has the nature of the transcendent modality [01:41:04]. It acts as the basis of “mediation between axiom one and two” [01:45:42]. It represents a “second person relationship” or a “peerage relationship” between different domains, where there is no single overarching embedding context, but rather mutual understanding through correspondence [01:46:07].

This means that the metaphysics can describe the process of describing itself [01:39:12]. The axioms and modalities close over the subjective and the objective inclusively, meaning the description includes the describer, the thing described, and the process of description [01:40:13].

The ability for the axioms to describe their own relationships (“the axioms can describe the pattern using the pattern”) allows them to describe themselves [01:48:11].

Production services and audio editing by Jared James Consulting. Music by Tom Muller at Modern [01:48:50].

Graph View

Backlinks