4 Correspondence Metaphysics


The Six Intrinsics

1.67-4 The concept and being of perceiver, perception (the action of perceiving), and perceived are distinct,
inseparable, and non-interchangeable.
The perceiver has the nature of the transcendent.
Perception has the nature of the immanent.
The perceived has the nature of the omniscient (1).

1.83-4 Perception is more basic than the perceiver and/or the perceived.

Perception has the nature of the immanent modality.
Perceiver has the nature of the transcendent modality.
Perceived has the nature of the omniscient modality.

The essence of perception is inclusion (comparison).
The essence of knowing (function of perceiver) is similarity.
The essence of the perceived (to be perceived) is proximity.

1.44-3 For example, the event of vision (as an interaction) can be understood as a dynamic of perception (a function of proximity), which begets recognition (a function of similarity), which begets knowing (a function of inclusion). This dynamic is consistent with Axiom II.

1.85-3 Any consideration of interaction, perception, expression (between self and reality) will ultimately rest on and resolve into specific meanings of exactly six aspects, irreducibly intrinsic (2) to the consideration itself.

1st Intrinsic: The distinction of subject and object (patterned and pattern-less, form and feeling)),
is an omniscient modal context.
In all interactions there is always a difference (discontinuity) between the subjective and the objective.

2nd Intrinsic: The fixed characteristic of the structure of the object (i.e., the platonic eternity),
is an omniscient modal content.
In all interactions there is always a degree of objectivity (symmetry) with fixed characteristics.

3rd Intrinsic: The irreversibility of change, is an immanent modal context.
In all interactions (continuity) there is always a subjective irreversibility (asymmetry).

4th Intrinsic: The direction of the flow (of change) is an immanent modal content.
In all interactions there is always a flow (continuity) of change with direction (asymmetry) and degrees of intensity.

5th Intrinsic: The transformation of information is a transcendent modal context.
In all interactions there is always a dynamic of abstraction and/or instruction.

6th Intrinsic: The specification of (addition of non-local and/or non-deterministic) transformation attributes
is a transcendent modal content.
In all interactions there is always a specification of the details (specified information, gauge values) added or removed.

1.85-5 For interactions which are perceptions, the flow of change is from the objective towards the subjective,
the dynamic is one of abstraction, and overall, details (information, gauge values) are removed.
For interactions which are expressions, the flow of change is from the subjective towards the objective,
the dynamic is one of instruction (to put into structure or form), and overall, details are added.

1.85-4 The intrinsics of distinction and fixed characteristic are defined in terms of causality.
The intrinsics of irreversibility and direction are defined in terms of change.
The intrinsics of transformation and specification are defined in terms of choice.

1.85-7 1.43-6 The concept of a measurement is isomorphic with the concept of an observation, a perception, and an interaction.
Comparison is more than a comparison of 'things'; a comparison is a comparison of interactions.
There are no purely static things; there are only interactions. All of these have (and are) being.

One cannot observe just one thing.
One cannot not (must always) observe at least one something.
One cannot completely observe any one thing.

1.43-7 Anything which has being, has as its being six distinct and intrinsic aspects. There can be no being which is incomparable. As with the intrinsics of comparison, all being will always have content and context, sameness and difference, and subjectivity (quality) and objectivity (form).

1.85-8 Any concept of an event of measurement will involve six intrinsics. These are inertia (here used with the combined meanings of mass, pattern, form, shape, and/or structure), space, force, time, probability, and possibility. All six of these will be considered, at least implicitly, in any consideration of any measurement.

1.85-9 The six intrinsics of a measurement can be grouped into two common classes, those which represent content aspects of a measurement and those which represent context aspects of measurement. Pattern, force, and probability are content aspects of measurement. Space, time, and possibility are context aspects of measurement.

Content triaxial: With the concept of physicality,
the class concept of 'content'
is composed of the instance concepts of
force, inertia, and probability.

Context triaxial: With the concept of physicality,
the class concept of 'context'
is composed of the instance concepts of
time, space, and possibility.

1.85-10 Where pattern, force, and probability are the content of a perception, these will be defined by symmetry law.
Where space, time, and possibility are the context of a perception, these will be defined by continuity law.

1.85-11 Where the incommensuration theorem asserts that the fundamental basis of consideration cannot regard anything as being both wholly symmetric and wholly continuous, then that which is known or defined as symmetric must also be discontinuous. The concept of discontinuity is isomorphic with the concept of quantization (3).

1.85-12 The concept of content has common basis with the concept of quantization (symmetry).
The concept of context has common basis with the concept of non-quantization (continuity).

1.85-13 At the scale of the absolute microscopic scale of a domain,
the pattern, force, and probability aspects of a perception must be quantized (symmetric, discontinuous).
At the scale of the absolute macroscopic scale of a domain,
the space, time, and possibility aspects of a perception must be continuous (non-quantized; asymmetric).

1.85-15 The metrics of Force in time have the nature of the modality of the immanent.
The metrics of inertia (pattern) in space have the nature of the modality of the omniscient.
The metrics of probability in possibility have the nature of the modality of the transcendent.

1.85-16 The six intrinsics of interaction have direct one to one correspondence
with the six intrinsic metrics of any physical domain.
In that the essential nature of all measurement (as in the method of science) is itself necessarily an interaction,
so does each of the six intrinsics of interaction provide the essential foundations of the metrication basis of all measurements.

1) The metric of space corresponds to a difference between the subjective and the objective (4) (discontinuous with each other, yet in symmetric relationship to each other).

2) The metric of mass/inertia/pattern (5) corresponds to objective content with fixed characteristics
(symmetric and discontinuous).

3) The metric of time corresponds to subjective irreversibility (6), a subjective flow of asymmetric continuous change without (physical) direction or intensity.

4) The metric of force corresponds to an objective asymmetric flow of continuous change with direction and intensity (7).

5) The metric of possibility corresponds to a dynamic of abstraction and/or instruction (8)
(instruction as 'to put into form').

6) The metric of probability (9) corresponds to the specification of gauge (10) values added or removed.

1.85-20 The difference between the subjective and the objective, and the objective content with fixed characteristics,
are the aspects of interaction which have the nature of the omniscient modality.

Subjective irreversibility and the flow of change with direction and intensity are the aspects of interaction which have the nature of the immanent modality.

The dynamic of abstraction and/or instruction and the specification of gauge values added or removed,
are aspects of interaction which have the nature of the transcendent modality.

1.85-17 As a fundamental relation (simple), interaction, perception, expression is (are) not in itself (themselves) further analyzable. Relations such as these cannot be analyzed except into terms of other dependent and secondary relations (made complex), implementing the model elements listed above. For example, there is no "medium" of perception (light needs no aether to propagate), as a form or substance (mass/ inertia/ pattern) which is more basic than the perception itself.

1.85-18 Interaction can only BE interaction when it directly and intrinsically involves all of the model aspects listed above. All other "interactions" are, and can only be, assumed (they are not known). For example, it is not possible to 'see' a ray of light that is not intersected by the eye. There are no "interactions" which are between "objects" which are only objective. All interactions are between a subjective subject and an objective object.

1.86-5 In considering space, time, and possibility, as defined in terms of the interaction itself, these concepts cannot be considered as an independent context in which events occur, but rather must be thought of as coordinating contexts occurring as an aspect of the beingness of the event. Time is relative to perception; perception is not relative to time. Time is defined by perception, perception does not occur in time (it 'creates' time) (11).

1.86-15 Space, time, possibility, probability, force, and pattern are aspects of interaction. The beingness of an interaction establishes the beingness of space, time, and possibility. Interactions do not "happen in a context", rather, there is a context (that context is, has being/reality) to the degree that there is an interaction.



Notes:
[1] In practice, the reality of the perceiver and the perceived depends/descends from the real nature of the perceiving (i.e., it is zero positive; one cannot not perceive). In theory insofar as that which is not real is regarded as being illusion, the being of both the perceiver (self) and the perceived (world) must be regarded as illusionary (since neither of these are the action of perceiving/perception itself; the relation between self and world (which is real) is neither self nor world). See 1.47-15.

[2] In the IDM metaphysics, the term "intrinsic" is used to distinguish against (and avoid) other possible interpretations/ connotations, (particularly those which indicate ideas of "causality" or of "predication"). The six intrinsics model is a view of the essential meaning of the term 'interaction', and is itself neither more nor less fundamental than the concept of interaction.

[3] The concept of quantization is here used in the same manner as it would be used in the science of Quantum Mechanics: to break up into distinct and discrete units or parts.

[4] The concept of space is an abstraction of the meaning of the distinction between subject and object. While the concept of space may relativize the nature of origin and scale (the subjective position and size of the self, i.e. the distance from "here", or one's 'point of view'), it does not (cannot) remove the necessity of the application/ instance of origin, scale, and distance altogether.

[5] The concept of mass (inertia) is an abstraction of the meaning of the fixed characteristic (pattern, form, structure, and content) of the objective. The concept of 'information' (i.e., fixed pattern) which is perceived is itself inseparable from the essence of the meaning of measurement.

[6] The concept of time (the arrow of time) is based on, and is an abstraction of,
the characteristic irreversibility of the being of an interaction.

[7] The concept of force is based on and is an abstraction of the concept of the aspect of direction in interaction. There can be no force which is not without direction. Within the context of the objective and subjective (see space above), this distinguishes between perception, as an interaction, and expression, as an interaction.

[8] The concept of possibility is an abstraction of the meaning of transformation, as an intrinsic aspect of all interactions (i.e., the mediation of the interaction itself). In the context of perception, the transformation is referred to as abstractive; in the context of expression, the transformation is referred to as "instructive".

[9] The concept of probability is based upon the concept of the specification aspects (complementary to transformation) of interaction. The probability of an event within the domain is not defined by the domain, but is rather defined by adding information/ detail to it.

[10] 'Gauge constants' refer to that 'information' which is added or removed in the process of either abstraction or instruction (together having the meaning of transformation).

[11] As an extension of this, events do not happen in a place, at a location, in a given moment of time. Rather they have (as aspects of themselves) position, duration, and possibility, which may be aligned via coordination/comparison with these same aspects of other events (eventities) so as to create a common context of comparison (what most people think of as these metrics -- as an objective context).



Actuality and Potentiality

1.87-1 Intradomain relations are always relations of actuality. Interdomain relations are always relations of potentiality (1).

1.46-11 Where the potentiality of an eventity is the same, it must be distinguished by its actuality.
Where the actuality of an eventity is the same, it must be distinguished by its potentiality.

Potentiality and quality increase as measure and scale decrease.
Actuality and form increase as measure and scale increase.

1.85-14 Anything that is actual will be quantized. Anything that is potential will be continuous.

1.63-6 The degree of potentiality is measured in terms of the number of, and degree of, interdomain relations.
The degree of actuality is measured in terms of the number of, and degree of, intradomain relations.

1.63-7 The concept and being of potentiality, actuality, and complexity are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable.
Potentiality has the nature of the transcendent.
Complexity has the nature of the immanent.
Actuality has the nature of the omniscient.

1.63-4 Parallel Aspect; 1st: Dynamics which tend to increase the degree of objectivity in the self-to-world relation will result in a proportional increase in the degree of actuality of that world, and a decrease in the degree of potentiality of what that world could be. These are processes which tend to place the self in a more omniscient modal relation to a world.

1.63-5 Parallel Aspect; 2nd: Dynamics which tend to increase the degree of subjectivity in the self-to-world relation will result in a proportional increase in the degree of the potentiality of that world, and a decrease in the degree of actuality of what that world is. These are processes which tend to place the self in a more transcendent modal relation to a world.



Notes:
1.87-2 [1] There is no meaning of the concept of a 'force' between domains. The concept of force is only applicable within domains, never across them. Only probabilities exist between domains. To consider the 'between-ness' of domains is to consider a transcendental relationship, whereas 'force' is a concept derived from an immanent modality.


The Content of World

2.62-1 Where there is a context of perception, there must (cannot not) be a content of that perception. This remains true regardless of the nature of the shift of objective context. Wherever attention is moved, one shall always find substance. Where there is the feeling of mind, there cannot not be the form of world.

2.62-2 Mind negates absence, separation, discontinuity.
Consciousness and subjectivity can only be continuous, can only have continuity.

2.62-3 Within the context of a world, from the perspective of a present moment (the now), there shall always be a past that one remembers. Where one moves to consider any place beyond one's current limits of vision, one shall always find content there. No world will ever have an 'edge' for which there is nothing beyond. Where one changes scale to consider the small details of something in the world, one always finds finer and finer details. Where one looks for other possibilities, other sequences of events, one always finds other sequences.

2.62-4 There cannot not be other possibilities, probabilities, and potentialities. Any potentiality can be made actual.

There cannot not continue to be creation (evolution), in all worlds, in all domains.
Creation is an aspect of events, rather than their source.

2.62-5 In all the worlds in which one perceives and has feeling, there cannot not be a possibility of expression, a form and a symbol of the self (body), projected as substance within that world. This symbol of mediation is the focus with which one expresses within that world. No interaction in perception can be so asymmetric as to be (completely/absolutely) without possibility (and means) of expression. Where one perceives and has feeling, one cannot be fully silent (secret).


The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable

2.62-6 All domains have some sort of unexplained phenomena. For example, there are always (cannot not be) some events that, even within a dream where seemingly anything goes, will go beyond the apparent creation of the dream itself, as known to the dreamer.

2.71-2 As per the intrinsic and irreducible nature of being itself, with the being of knowing, and the known,
there must also always be the unknown and the unknowable.

2.71-3 When considered from the perspective of the impersonal, the objective, the concept of the known has the nature of the omniscient, the concept of the unknown has the nature of the immanent and the concept of the unknowable has the nature of the transcendent.

When considered from the perspective of the personal, the subjective, the known is immanent, the unknown is omniscient and the unknowable is transcendent.

2.71-4 Only the being of interactions in the immanent modality can be known. The being of interactions between eventities viewed in the omniscient modality can only be hypothesized, never known. The absence of interactions between eventities in distinct transcendent domains can not be hypothesized or known, and are unknowable.

2.71-5 The known, the unknown, and the unknowable are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable.
The concept of the unknown is more basic than the concept of the known and/or the concept of the unknowable.

2.71-6 There can be no firm or absolute line drawn between the known and the unknown.
There can be drawn a fixed and absolute logical line between the unknown and the unknowable.

2.71-7 Many experiences of the unknown precede one experience of the known.
Many experiences of the known precede one experience of the unknowable.
Many experiences of the unknowable precede one experience of the unknown.


The Great Mystery

2.72-1 The Great Mystery refers to the unknowable as well as the unknown. The true mystery, the deeply mysterious is that which is inherently inexplicable but which is not therefore paradoxical (nonsense). Although elements of the Great Mystery cannot be explained or reduced to pure reason, it is that from which all reason and reasonableness arise.

2.72-2 The limits of knowing, the boundaries of a domain and of the self, are three. These three limits or mysteries, are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable. They define the boundaries and distinctions between the known, the unknown, and the unknowable.

The Mystery of the Horizon refers to the macroscopic limit of a domain, beyond which is the unknown and unknowable; that place which is so far away in time and space as to be into the absolute elsewhere.

The Mystery of the Infinitesimal refers to the microscopic limit of the domain; that scale at which knowledge of definite state or quality becomes impossible (Heisenberg uncertainty limits).

The Mystery of the Subconscious refers to a mesoscopic limit in the nature of the knowledge of one's subjective self; that quality of which oneself is.

2.72-3 The Mystery of the horizon has the nature of the omniscient. The Mystery of the infinitesimal has the nature of the transcendent. The Mystery of the subconscious has the nature of the immanent.

2.72-4 The Mystery of the subconscious is more fundamental
than the mystery of the horizon or the mystery of the infinitesimal.

Any consideration of the mystery of the horizon, or the mystery of the very small (the infinitesimal) presupposes a consideration (at least implicitly) of the mystery of the subconscious. In that consideration presupposes consciousness, it involves also the subconscious and the unconscious.

2.72-5 A class of the mystery of the horizon precedes an instance of the mystery of the infinitesimals.
A class of the mystery of the infinitesimal precedes an instance of the mystery of the subconscious.
A class of the mystery of the subconscious precedes an instance of the mystery of the horizon.

2.72-6 Mystery in the world is not a feature of the world. Anything that can be pointed to and described objectively will at most be something that elicits mystery; it will not (and cannot) be the mystery.

2.72-7 The unknowable, Mystery (awe) does not have or admit measure, degree, quantity, or value.
Mystery cannot be regarded as finite.

2.72-8 Mystery is neither conserved nor diminished by any degree of knowing, understanding, reason, or science. While knowing can affect the unknown, it cannot affect the unknowable. The quality of the mysterious (that which is awe inspiring) in the universe is unchanged regardless of one's degree of knowing (or unknowing) of the dynamics of worldly causality.

2.73-1 Irreducible Uncertainty: No amount of communication or interaction (familiarity) in any domain or world will ever allow one to predict with certainty what will be said next, what will happen next. Communication and self are emergent. There are always some aspects of the content of these which are indeterminable and surprising.

2.74-1 The Veil of Secrecy: The omniscient cannot ever contain, or view/observe, the transcendent. In that the process of knowing is itself immanent, one cannot directly know the transcendent from within the perspective of the omniscient. It can only be that transcendent can perceive/know the omniscient, never the reverse.


Theory of Creation

1.73-1 Context has no source. Context has no position, no location. Context is not observable. Only content can be 'observed'. Context can be made 'observable' only by 'converting' it into content (1).

1.73-2 Creation is real, yet it does not exist. The ontology of the class of creation is distinct from the ontology of the class (concept of) existence. The concepts of being real and of existing are not the same; nothing about one implies anything about the other.

1.73-3 Creation is not actual. As Creation/creativity is neither a pattern, nor a space, it is also neither a force nor a time.
Creation/creativity has the nature of probability and possibility. Creation is potentiality, rather than actuality.

1.73-4 Creation (creativity) is not observable. It cannot be seen or measured and has no definite properties.
Creation, by its very nature, must always seem to have happened somewhere else, or at some other time.
Creation in itself is always and necessarily invisible, transparent, and ultimately unknowable.

Creation is like the silence between the words, the space between the letters; always present within looking, but never (available to be) directly observed.

1.73-5 Creation does not have a source. Creation does not have a location. Creation IS, without coming from somewhere,
or from someone, or from something. Creation is the objective context of existence as a content.

There is (and can be) no single self which is the sole source of (all) creation (for any domain, world, or universe). Imagination, knowledge, healing, and creativity are eventualities that are without source. They never come from just one place or from any one single person/self. They come from many places, many times, and many people. No one ever does anything completely by themselves.

1.73-6 Creation does not have a measure or degree. Creation is formless and structureless.
Creation consists of, and has being purely in terms of, quality.

1.73-7 Creation is not conserved and is not subject a to law of conservation. Without form, the concept of conservation (as a symmetry of form or measure) cannot be applied to creation.

One does not need to "tap into" something external to oneself to create, to heal, to know something, or to have imagination. In the very process of living itself each of these qualities will take its own form.

1.73-8 Both creation and choice are necessarily/fundamentally cooperative processes.

1.73-9 In the same manner that all of causality is existential, all of choice is creative. Personal choice is the participation of self in the universal aspect of creation.

1.73-10 Creation is unbounded and formless. Creation cannot be constrained or modified by anything which exists.
Nothing which exists can prevent creation from being. Creation IS, and cannot not be.

1.73-11 Creation is not repeatable. Creation has no process, and is not causal. Creation always and inherently involves domain/world transcendent relationships.

1.73-12 The concept of creation is isomorphic with the concept of potentiality. As such, creation/potentiality cannot ever be fully subsumed or contained within a/any space.

1.73-13 Creation is not an event, but rather is an aspect of all events. Creation does not have a time. Creation does not have a location. There has been (and there can be) no event which may be called 'the creation of the universe'. Rather creation is an aspect of events. All events have creative/ creation aspects. There is no event that does not have potentiality (creativity, novelty) as a fundamental and inseparable aspect of that event.

1.73-14 Creation is not a process, and it is not a being. It does not have dynamics or components (or personality).
Rather creation is an aspect of all process. All components are creative, not created.

The question of whether something is 'created' or 'found/discovered' is dependent on the placement/position of the arbitrary boundary of self. Depending on how one chooses to consider the totality of all being (all that is real) and divides it into aspects which are to be considered as self and not-self, one also chooses to consider that one has either "created" or "discovered" something in any given image/domain. If, as an extreme view, one were to consider all of beingness as subjective (an idealism), then one may assert that one has 'created everything' (self as deity). If one were to consider an opposite extreme (a 'realism'), then one may assert that one has created nothing (self as only substance). In the IDM metaphysics, neither extreme view is considered valid.

To be a realist is to consider that subjective content is continuous with objective content.
To be an idealist is to consider that objective content is symmetric with subjective content.

1.73-15 Creation, although not a process, typically involves the microscopic boundary of a domain. The entrance of creative potentiality occurs through the scale of the very small, but at no particular position/locus in time and/or space.

1.73-16 The strength of a potentiality, or creative manifestation, is defined in terms of the degree of organization and coherency of large numbers of microscopic eventualities. The examination of any small finite collection of microscopic eventualities will have a lesser appearance of potentiality than that of the entire aggregate, proportional to the degree of rectification used.

1.73-17 To be clear is to allow creation. The degree of creation aspect is proportional to clarity, transparency (emptiness/potentiality), and inversely proportional to simplicity. Events of greater degrees of synthesis and complexity have stronger aspects of creation/creativity.

1.82-6 1.88-1 The quality of positivity (zero positive) has the nature of the immanent modality.
The quality of constancy (symmetry, equality, conservation) has the nature of the omniscient modality.
The quality of increase (continuity, inequality, evolution)) has the nature of the transcendent modality.

1.88-2 The nature of creation is to always be increasing.
The nature of interaction is to always be positive.
The nature of existence is to always be constant.

1.88-3 The law of the constancy of heat is omniscient modal.
The law of the positivity of temperature is immanent modal.
The law of the increase in entropy is transcendent modal.

1.88-4 Entropy has direction. The concept of entropy has common basis with the concept of asymmetry. The concept of asymmetry has the modality of the transcendent. The concept of heat has common basis with the concept of continuity.



Notes:
[1] For example, one never observes objective time; rather, one observes a clock.


Synthesis and Emergent

1.74-1 The resultant aspect of an interaction/synthesis is the part that could be predicted in advance.
The emergent is the aspect of an interaction/synthesis that could not be predicted in advance, even in principle.

1.74-2 The degree to which emergent aspects are apparent will be proportional to the degree to which there is a difference in scale between the mesoscopic scale (known) and microscopic boundary of a domain (unknown). The microscopic boundary of a domain cannot ever have a scale of identically (exactly) zero.

1.74-3 All interactions, choices, and events (without exception) involve both resultant and emergent aspects. There shall always be surprising aspects within our knowledge of reality.

1.74-4 Worlds (the universe) select that/those possibilities that maximize (yield) both potentiality and actuality. Those dynamics/systems/worlds that allow for the greatest level of both realization/manifestation and the potentiality of increase of the basal motivations (1) are selected as being the most probable out of all possible. All selection seeks to maximize the flux of creativity/evolution and experience/interaction.

A domain that has maximum degrees of stability/inertia/mass and yet at the same time also has maximum degrees of dynamism/change/flux will be the domain with the most action (intensity of beingness).

1.74-5 A given thing/domain/world cannot be both absolutely static and absolutely dynamic (the static and the dynamic are conjugate). The limit to which both attributes can be applied together for any given "thing" defines the maximum creativity expressible with respect to that thing. Creativity and experience are at a maximum when the greatest possible degree of the combination of both static and dynamic aspects of a domain are realized.



Notes:
[1] The concept of basal motivations is considered in the section starting with 2.11-1.



Back Up To TOC Next


For recommendations, comments, suggestions, or other offers to provide qualified assistance,
Please write to:

[20_14/12/09;17:18:50.00]