The Nature of Inquiry

1.92-3 Within a language domain (within communication), there are exactly six classes of question.
In the English language these are known by the terms of 'how', 'why', 'who', 'what', 'where' and 'when'.

Questions of who are resolved in terms of a class of the subjective.
Questions of what are resolved in terms of a class of the objective.
Questions of how are resolved in terms of an instance of a subjective content.
Questions of why are resolved in terms of an instance of a subjective context.
Questions of when are resolved in terms of an instance of an objective content.
Questions of where are resolved in terms of an instance of an objective context.

1.92-5 Questions of why, how and who are always relative (in relation to) to a particular self.
Questions of what, where and when are always relative (in relation to) to a particular world.

1.92-6 Questions of why and how have the nature of the transcendent modality. Questions of who and what have the nature of the immanent modality. Questions of when and where have the nature of the omniscient modality.

The six question types group into three axis pairs which represent convolutions of two other primary concepts.
These pairs are abstraction and instruction, the subjective and the objective, and the spatial and the temporal.

An answer to a question of why
always refers to an abstraction.
A 'why type assertion' is one which,
given a specified instructed eventity X,
provides/specifies/corresponds/defines
an abstract eventity Y.

An answer to a question of how
always refers to an instruction.
A 'how type assertion' is one which,
given a specified abstract eventity X,
provides/specifies/corresponds/defines
an instruction eventity Y.

An answer to a question of who
always refers to that which is subjective.
A 'who type assertion' is one which,
given a specified objective eventity X,
provides/specifies/corresponds/defines
a subjective eventity Y.

An answer to a question of what
always refers to that which is objective.
A 'what type assertion' is one which,
given a specified subjective eventity X,
provides/specifies/corresponds/defines
an objective eventity Y.

An answer to a question of where
always refers to that which is spatial.
A 'where type assertion' is one which,
given a specified temporal eventity X,
provides/ specifies/ corresponds/ defines
a spatial eventity Y.

An answer to a question of when
always refers to that which is temporal.
A 'when type assertion' is one which,
given a specified spatial eventity X,
provides/ specifies/ corresponds/ defines
a temporal eventity Y.

1.92-7 The six types of question have direct one-to-one correspondences with the six types of primary domain metrics.

A why type question corresponds to
a consideration of possibility.
A how type question corresponds to
a consideration of probability.
A who type question corresponds to
a consideration of force.
A what type question corresponds to
a consideration of mass (inertia/pattern).
A where type question corresponds to
a consideration of space.
A when type question corresponds to
a consideration of time.

1.92-8 The process and being of the questions of how and why, of abstraction and instruction, expression and perception, and possibility and probability, refer to (and are specified in terms of) relations of similarity between domains.
The process and being of the questions of who and what, of the objective and the subjective, statement and self, and inertia and force, refer to (and are specified in terms of) relations of inclusion between eventities and domains.
The process and being of the questions of when and where, of space and time, and the proscriptive and the descriptive, refer to (and are specified in terms of) relations of proximity between eventities.


Triplication

1.47-1 1.72-17 The Law of Three: A relation is always a relation of at least three. For every pair of concepts, there is always at least one more. For every interaction or comparison, there are always at least three intrinsic aspects.

1.47-2 For every sameness there is a difference. For every difference there is a sameness.
For every way that there is for something to be the same, there are at least two ways for it to be different.
For every way that it is different, there are at least two ways in which it is the same.

1.47-3 Every instance is an instance of at least two classes. Every class has at least two instances.
Where the immanent is a class, the omniscient and the transcendent will be instances.
Where the immanent is an instance, the omniscient and the transcendent will be classes.

1.47-4 For every whole, there are at least two parts. For every part, there is always at least two wholes.

1.47-5 For every context, there are always at least two contents. For every content, there are always at least two contexts.
There shall always be (at least) more than one content, or more than one context, or both.
Where context is singular, content must be plural. Where content is singular, context must be plural.

1.47-6 When positing only one context, the context shall be defined as more fundamental than the two contents.
When positing only one content, the content shall be defined as more fundamental than the two contexts.

1.47-7 Where there is known a form of symmetry, so must there also be known two forms of asymmetry.
Where there is known a form of asymmetry, so must there also be known two forms of symmetry.

1.47-8 Where there is one aspect of simplicity, there are always at least two aspects of complexity.
Where there is one aspect of complexity, there are always at least two aspects of simplicity.

1.47-9 Where there is one way in which something is clear, there are at least two ways in which it is obscure.
Where there is one way in which something is obscure, there is always at least two ways in which it is clear.

1.47-10 Every choice has at least two meanings, and every meaning arises from at least two choices.

1.47-11 Every effect has at least two causes, and every cause has at least two effects.

1.47-12 Everything that is has at least two purposes (uses) to which it may be applied.
Every action has at least two reactions, at least two consequences (irreversible changes in the world).

1.47-13 There is never just one relation for any identity; every identity is always involved in at least three relations.
There is never just one thing. Eventities are always plural. Where there is one, there is always at least one more.

1.47-14 To be real is singular. Reality is never singular. Reality is always plural (worlds).
An eventity (complex) is always a part of a reality (perceptions and expressions of eventities are always real).

1.47-15 For all that is real, there are at least two ways in which it is an illusion. For all that is illusion, there are at least two ways in which it is real.

1.47-16 For every being, there are at least two ways of doing; and for every doing, there are at least two ways of being.


The Intercompositional and the Interexclusionary

1.46-4 Parallel Aspect; 1st: External (position) uniquity: where the unique context of an eventity is necessary and sufficient to define that eventity as being unique.

1.46-5 Parallel Aspect; 2nd: Internal (pattern) uniquity: where the unique content of an eventity is necessary and sufficient to define that eventity as being unique.

1.46-2 Parallel Aspect; 1st: Interexclusionary: that class of eventities for which existence in one place/time prevents/excludes any similar eventities from existing in that same place/time.

1.46-3 Parallel Aspect; 2nd: Intercompositional: that class of eventities for which existence in one place/ time does not prevent/exclude any number of similar eventities from existing in that same place/time.

1.46-6 The meaning of interexclusionary is to assert that where there is a plurality of contexts,
there must be a singularity of content.
The meaning of intercompositional is to assert that where there is a singularity of context,
there may be a plurality of content.

1.46-7 When viewing from an external perspective, to be intercompositional is to imply a discontinuity in being and an asymmetry in doing. To be interexclusionary is to imply a symmetry in being and a continuity in doing (1).

1.46-8 Parallel Aspect; 1st: Eventities which have an interexclusionary nature can only have their existence described in terms of external uniquity (2). Anything which can only be defined as unique by external measurements must have an interexclusionary nature (3).

1.46-9 Parallel Aspect; 2nd: Eventities which have an intercompositional nature can only have their existence described in terms of internal uniquity. Anything which can only be defined as unique by internal measurements must have an intercompositional nature (4).

1.46-10 Eventities which have an intercompositional nature
are distinguished (as unique instances)
only by their content (inner pattern).
Eventities which have an interexclusionary nature
are distinguished (as unique instances)
only by their context (outer pattern).

All interactions are unique, either by content or by context.
Where content is identical, context must be different.
Where context is identical, content must be different (5).

1.46-13 1.75-11
Form is interexclusionary. Feeling is intercompositional.
Objectivity is interexclusionary. Subjectivity is intercompositional.
Purpose is interexclusionary. Value is intercompositional.

1.46-15 With respect to the self, the concept of 'instance'
is regarded as a content, in terms of a difference,
and as being unique and interexclusionary.
With respect to the self, the concept of the class
is regarded as a context, in terms of sameness,
and as being non-unique and intercompositional.

1.46-12 All that is qualia is intercompositional, has the nature of non-local context, and is understood in terms of continuity.
All that is quanta is interexclusionary, has the nature of local content, and is understood in terms of symmetry.

1.46-14 Perception is interexclusionary in space (position) and actuality. Expression is intercompositional in possibility and potentiality.

2.51-17 Body is strictly interexclusionary. Soul (self, mind, consciousness) is strictly intercompositional.
Soul is defined only by pattern (quality) uniquity, whereas body is defined only by position uniquity.

Awareness is interexclusionary. Consciousness is intercompositional. Perception is.



Notes:
[1] Nothing is either purely and absolutely interexclusionary or purely and absolutely intercompositional. Everything (every eventity, interaction, relation, or comparison) is to some extent interexclusionary and to some extent intercompositional.

[2] Uniquity: In reference to the quality of being unique, rather than to the degree that something is relatively unique (uniqueness).

[3] Example: Where all electrons have the same measurable properties, distinct instances of electrons can be distinguished only by their position.

[4] Example: Photons can only be distinguished by their properties, where many photons can be in the same space at the same time.

[5] For example, the concept of a 'particle' is isomorphic with the concept of an interaction. Interactions have two aspects (two types), the intercompositional (fermions) and the interexclusionary (bosons). The interexclusionary have the aspect of the omniscient (existence, actuality), are quantized, and are defined by symmetry. The intercompositional have the aspect of the transcendent (potentiality, creation), are asymmetric (directed waves), and are defined by continuity. The actuality of the boson grows out of the virtuality of the fermion, much as the virtuality of the fermion grows out of the actuality of the boson.



Ontology

1.42-1 On the basis of the Root Tautology, the following three principles may be established:.

The Absolute Ontology Principle: Interaction is considered to be ultimately and independently 'real', in some irreducible sense, in all formulations of theory (1). There IS, in some irreducible sense, always interaction.

The Principle of Absolute Unity: There is always some method of considering interactions as being the same, identical, or equivalent, in all formulations of theory (2). There IS, for each interaction, in some irreducible sense, a manner in which it is part of an (at least two, arbitrary) abstract whole(s).

The Principle of Absolute Uniquity: There is always some method of considering interactions as being different from one another (i.e., as at least 'distinctly instanced') in all formulations of theory. There IS, for each interaction considered as a part of an abstract whole, in some irreducible sense, a manner in which it is distinct from all others (unique) in that abstract whole (3).

1.42-2 The absolute ontology principle establishes the nature of the concept of instances of interactions within some class, while the principle of absolute unity and the principle of absolute uniquity establish the nature of comparisons of interactions within that class.

1.42-3 All three principles are necessary and intrinsic within any concept or consideration of comparison.

1.42-6 In that the concept of an interaction and the concept of a comparison are isomorphs, the three principles could be stated more formally for all contents and contexts, explicitly in terms of comparison and its near allied predicates.

The Absolute Ontology Principle: There is assumed to be a class of instances of comparable comparisons.

The Principle of Absolute Unity: There is assumed to be a class of instances of comparisons of comparisons
such that all instances of the comparisons are the same.

The Principle of Absolute Uniquity: There is assumed to be a class of instances of comparisons of comparisons
such that all instances of the comparisons are different.

1.42-7 While the principle of unity and the principle of uniquity may initially seem contradictory, there is always a sense in which they are consistent with one another for any given pair of interactions.

Interactions are always implicitly compared in terms of their various aspects. The interactions themselves, when examined with the operator of comparison, are considered to be complex rather than simple (conceptual monads).

There may simultaneously be a sense in which various aspects of a pair of interactions are the same and in which the various other aspects of those interactions are different. The difference and sameness of interactions are the differences and sameness of aspects of those interactions.

The concepts of difference and sameness are relative concepts (with respect to the various selected aspects of interaction), and not absolute ones. The IDM metaphysics regards these concepts (difference and sameness) as being self evident.

1.42-8 The absolute ontology principle has the nature of the immanent modality. The principle of absolute unity has the nature of the omniscient modality. The principle of absolute uniquity has the nature of the transcendent modality.

1.76-5 The concepts of existence, reality, and objectivity may be resolved by the principles of the IDM metaphysics.

The concept of the real is taken to refer to an application of the absolute ontology principle, independently of its possible associations with any particular self or domain.

The concept of existence is taken to be an application of the principle of absolute unity, relative to a specific domain, and independent of its possible association with any particular self.

The concept of being is taken to be an application of the principle of absolute uniquity, relative to a specific self, and independent of its possible association with any particular domain (world).

1.72-15 Interactions are always in some sense (omniscient) the same, are symmetric, and are constant. Interactions are also always in some sense (transcendent) distinct (as different), and are asymmetric (as non-constant, in-equivalent, or increasing).



Notes:
[1] The meaning of the term ontology is usually taken to refer to the philosophical study of the nature of beingness in itself.

[2] This principle asserts that for any instance of a thing, there has to be some manner in which the thing is like, or comparable to, any other thing. There is always some manner by which to regard any two things as being similar, or the same as, one another.

[3] "Uniquity" is a term used to refer to the quality or nature of being unique. This principle asserts that for any 'thing' that there has to be some manner of regarding that instance of 'thing' as being distinct from all other instances of 'thing'. Note that the concept of distinctness refers to the concept of difference. All identity is distinct, every distinction is an identity.



The Scope of Theory

Where theory is defined most immediately in terms of the mesoscopic, the concept of symmetry becomes an assertion about the macroscopic made from the perspective of the mesoscopic, and the concept of continuity becomes an assertion about the microscopic made from the perspective of the mesoscopic.

1.54-2 Empirical measurement happens only at the scales of the mesoscopic. Extrapolation of theory is used to consider the scales of the microscopic and that of the macroscopic. As such, effective theory is developed from the middle outward, rather than from the top down (religious ideas of emanation, philosophies of idealism) or from the bottom up (atomic physical monism, philosophies of realism). Life happens between. Effective theory also begins between.

Eventities within domains are considered in terms of both scale and location. The concept of scale is equally as fundamental as the concept of location (position in the domain, defined by proximity, relative to other eventities). The concept of a scale is not a position or a thing, nor even a direction in conventional spatial terms.

1.54-3 The degree of lawfulness of the microscopic aspects of a domain are conjugate with the degree of lawfulness of the macroscopic aspects of a domain. No domain/world can be regarded as completely lawful at both the microscopic and the macroscopic scales of being. No theory/description of the real can be both correct across the whole span of the world and also assert finite dependence of its elements.

1.54-4 No theory will ever be able to completely explain, predict, or model, all observable behavior and phenomena (interactions, change) in a world (domain) (1).

1.43-4 An assumption of local consistency must eventually result in a realization of global inconsistency.
Perfect continuity must preclude perfect symmetry (2).



Notes:
[1] Note: this also includes the IDM metaphysics. A metaphysics is not a theory of everything so much as it is a comprehensive description of the foundations of domains.

[2] An assumption of global consistency will also eventually force a realization of local inconsistency. An assumption of consistency cannot hold at the absolute extrema of all scales (from the scale of identically zero to the scale of identically infinite). An assumption valid for one scale of being is not therefore valid for all scales of being.



There Is No Universe

1.72-8 In that all members of the class 'that which exists' must have a non-null possibility of interacting (i.e., there is a non-zero positive potentiality of interactions (direct or indirect) between any pair of existences), so must the concept of continuity (of potentiality) be commonly applied to all members, and to the class itself.

1.72-9 In that the nature of the beingness of any member of the class of that which is existing is the same as that of any other member, so must the concept of symmetry (of actuality) be commonly applied to all members and to the class itself.

1.72-10 In that the concept of perfect symmetry and the concept of perfect continuity are themselves fundamentally incommensurate, so must the class of existence be itself incomplete and non-absolute (i.e., finite and indefinite).
Thus, there can be no single all embracing class of "universal" existence.

1.71-1 In that the conventional concept of 'universe' is taken to be the abstract class of all abstract classes of unity (i.e., a presumed totality of all existences within all domains), 'the universe' explicitly cannot be given an ontological status of its own, in terms of being, reality, or existence, as defined (1).

1.71-2 There is no single context that encompasses all other contexts and contents. There is no single domain that encompasses all other domains. There is no single frame of 'the all of reality'. There is no one single material universe containing and subsuming all.

1.71-3 There is no single root substance that is within all other substances. There is no fundamental unit or atom of substance. Nor can all of existence be made of any finite set of things, materials, substances, or existences. There is no single final fundamental actual substance in any world or domain.

1.71-4 There is no 'super-domain' which includes as members all other domains as sub-entities.
The idea of 'a universe' cannot be fully realized, even in principle.
Any attempt to formulate such will result in paradox.
The transcendent cannot be contained within the omniscient.

1.71-5 There is no single fundamental ground of being.
There is no single fundamental lawfulness common to all causality, in any world, domain, or universe.
There is no one single 'real' reality/ universe.

1.71-6 There is no universal context. There is no universal domain. There is no universal language (2).

1.71-7 There is a universal content. There are universal symbols (the three modalities). Each modality is exactly one primary universal symbol. Of universal symbols, there can be no fewer than three, and when three, they will always correspond to the three modalities.

1.81-1 No possible experiment done within a domain (the universe) can demonstrate the closure of the domain (universe).
Neither the universe, nor any part of it, can be regarded as a closed system, immutable to change.
There are no worlds or domains with fixed and immutable boundaries.

No domain is ever fully closed. There are no closed systems.
There are no 'complete' domains. All domains are open (3).

1.81-7 The universe is locally consistent but globally inconsistent.
For any domain, there will be laws of local conservation (symmetry base principle).
No concept of domain global conservation, however, can be so consistently defined (4).



Notes:
[1] The concept of 'the universe' implicitly requires an assumption of an omniscient modal concept containing a transcendent modal concept. In that the concept of universe is in direct contradiction to Axiom II, it is considered to be 'ill formed' and internally inconsistent as a metaphysical concept.

As such, metaphysics cannot ever consider 'the universe', but can only consider 'creation', 'interaction', and 'existence'.

[2] In considering that there is no absolute (all encompassing) context, a universal language would necessarily be defined as a language in which all statements made using that language would be understood in a manner completely independent of (both objective and subjective) context. However, in that all representations are a content of a domain and therefore at least minimally (objective) context dependent, there can be no absolute universal language.

[3] These statements are to be regarded with the related implications regarding monism and cosmology.
This lack of closure applies to all of the domain metric variables, without exception.

[4] The concept of conservation cannot be validly applied to anything which has a purely transcendental character. For example, love is not conserved. Value is not conserved. Having one love or value does not carry any necessary impact on the possibility of having more than one love or value.



There Is No Control

1.81-5 1.72-16 All interactions have collateral aspects. No interaction (or energy) is ever perfectly or completely collateral, and no interaction is not at least partially collateral.

Co-lateral energy: in the ideal case, this refers to an interdomain relation in which a change in the state of one domain implies and defines a change in the state of another domain, in a manner which depends only on the form of the change (i.e., is completely independent of the relative strengths of the energies involved in the respective domains) (1).

Interaction cannot prevent interaction, but only beget it. Choice always begets choice.

1.66-5 1.81-4 No form of control is absolute; all process has some aspect of a cooperative nature. There is no control, there is only influence. It is fundamentally impossible to completely and/or absolutely control or constrain anything, in any domain, under any circumstances, ever.

1.81-3 There are no absolutely asymmetric interactions. No interaction, no relation, can ever be fully and completely asymmetric. While it is possible for relations and interactions to be nearly asymmetric, it is impossible for such relations to be fully, absolutely, and wholly asymmetric. Every action has at least some reaction.

1.81-6 No perception is perfectly omniscient (or objective). No expression is perfectly transcendent (or absolute).

Ultimately, there is no (never) control of that which is internal to self. Desire has no reason, and cannot be permanently constrained. There is no control of creativity. Creation itself is not controllable or constrainable.

1.66-6 Everything has potentiality, possibility, and choice.
One cannot choose in such a way that another cannot have choice.
One cannot even choose not to have choice (to voluntarily 'not choose' is also a choice).

1.66-4 Choice is not conserved, finite, or limited (the self cannot "run out of choice(s)"). Randomness is not conserved.
Creation is not conserved. Creativity is not conserved. There is always more of each.

1.66-9 Choice in the past cannot ever fundamentally reduce the amount or degree of choice in the present. Choice can partially limit and constrain other choices, but choice cannot take away (the beingness of) choice itself. No other person's choices/beliefs, nor any consensus belief system, can compel/force/constrain anyone to choose/believe anything in particular. Each choice will, to some non-zero extent, beget and enable other choices.

1.66-12 Choice cannot (completely/ absolutely) fix or limit other choice. Choice can only enable other choice (both within domains and across them).

1.81-2 Nothing within a world can prevent the creation of new events, the creation of a/the world(s).
Instances of relations cannot ultimately limit the beingness of other instances of relations.

The entrance of any new life into a world/reality always occurs through the microscopic boundary.
All birth begins at the smallest scales of existence.
The universe is open and unbounded at the microscopic scales,
even while it must appear to be closed and bounded at macroscopic scales.

1.66-15 To be truly and vibrantly alive, some element of wildness, an absence of conditioning, constraint, and control, is necessary. When (and where) wildness ceases, the most vital and dynamic aspect of life and creation also dies.

To be wild is to refer to a world which is unconditioned, unconstrained, and uncontrolled. The wild refers to a nature which is alive and dynamic. Wildness refers to a space, an environment that has life in it, but which is not therefore civil, domesticated, or even known to the objective marketplace world. It is that place for which there is no map, and little understanding. Wildness is when and where the sub-consciousness (and to some extent, the unconsciousness) rules more strongly than the conscious. Wildness has no purpose, and contains few values. Rather, the wild is defined directly as a meaningfulness of life; a desire, passion, and instinct to continue to live free (ultimate survival). To appreciate wildness is to appreciate the cauldron of life.



Notes:
[1] For example, consider a conventional light switch; an event within the domain of the mechanical will define the pattern of energies (state) in the domain of the electrical, even though there is no relationship between the amount of mechanical energy required to set the switch and the amount of electrical energy which is controlled by the switch.


Subjectivity and Consensus

3.45-1 Subjectivity is irreducible. One cannot consider subjectivity purely in terms of objectivity.
The/an/any/all action and concept of observation/perception is inseparable from the action and concept of subjectivity and objectivity.

3.45-2 As an aspect of perception, subjectivity is not observable. There shall always be some part of subjective experience which cannot be accessed (or perceived or observed) by any other (regardless of the method used or the technique practiced). There shall always be some part of subjective experience which is not available by/to any other, and cannot be perceived, accessed, or observed in any other, in any manner, even in principle.

1.75-3 Within the context of theory, neither subjectivity nor objectivity can be described or explained purely in terms of the other. Subjective experience (or choice) does not arise just from objective being (causality) any more than objective being (causality) arises just from subjective experience (or choice). Neither is more fundamental than the other. The interaction between the subjective and the objective (perception and expression) is more fundamental than either the subjective and/or the objective.

1.75-4 A context of subjectivity cannot be defined purely in terms of content objectivity. No objective content can be defined purely in terms of subjective context. Both subjectivity and objectivity must be considered as (and in terms of being) inherent and irreducible aspects of all events, all interactivity, all communication.

1.75-5 There can be no objective theory (theory of physics) that will completely account for all (and all aspects of) subjective experience. There can be no subjective theory (religious revelation, mysticism) which can account for all (and all aspects of) objective experience.

1.75-6 No amount of objective process will replace any amount of subjective experience; no amount of subjective choice will replace any amount of objective expression. They are of equal value.

1.72-18 All Interactions (perceptions, expressions) are inherently unique in their instance. No interaction can replace, or take the place of, any other. No experience can replace any other experience. All experiences (interactions) are equally valued.

No degree (even a very large degree) of knowing is equivalent to any degree (even a very small degree) of understanding. No degree of understanding is equivalent to any degree of knowing. Understanding cannot replace, or create, knowing. Knowing cannot replace, or create, understanding.

1.75-7 There is no world that is completely independent of all selves and there is no self which is completely independent of all worlds. No single domain can account for, or be the source of, all subjective/self experience.

3.45-4 The concept of consensus (a degree of objectivity of a world) is isomorphic with the concept of a consistency of comparison. To create this consistency, there must be defined a correspondence of the content of experience between multiple selves. To create (to know that there are) alignments in the content of experience, a different order, level, or meta-perception (experience) is necessary (intrinsic) (1). A multiplicity (at least more than one) of domains/worlds is necessary to create alignments of experience (objectivity, consensus) in any specific world.

3.45-3 All of objective reality is constructed via correspondences. There is no concrete absolute ground of all being.
There are only varying levels and degrees of correspondence between experiences of consciousness (2).

3.45-5 In that a multiplicity of differing levels (domains) of interaction are necessary to establish a consensus reality/world, correspondences of subjective experience (subjective because of their inter-domain character relative to any specific domain) are as much inherently a part of the foundation (composition basis) of objectivity as is any material aspect, (i.e., what is defined on an existential basis, perfectly intra-domain). The degree of objectivity (an alignment between various multiple domains of self and world) is in part proportional to, and in part conjugate with, the degree of alignment in subjectivity (3).



Notes:
[1] This is consistent with the second ring in the concept of objectivity (See 1.75-15). The meta-perception is a coordination point (agreement) for the formation of an objectifying comparison. A constellation of such coordination points provides a basis for the formation of stable consistent worlds.

As an example, consider as a metaphor a spaceship engaged in a docking procedure with a stationary space station. The pilot will use visual feedback (i.e. interactions in the domain of electromagnetism) to guide the craft to/towards the dock, so as to couple the ship and the station into one mechanical unit (i.e. a mechanical alignment in the domain of physical materials). In this example, the electromagnetic domain acts as a meta-domain for establishing a correspondence in the domain of physical material.

[2] To understand the nature of consensus reality, consider a metaphor of sending e-mail from one computer to another. An e-mail message is not transmitted by sending the physical computer, hard drive, etc. Rather there is established a temporary correspondence between what the sender sees on the computer screen and what the reader sees on their computer screen.

[3] Synchronicity, and co-incidence, are as much a part of what establishes (is necessary to establish) a consensus universe (domain) as physical (i.e. as having substance). The part which is proportional is defined by the contribution to the second ring of objectivity. The part which is conjugate is defined by the third ring of objectivity.



Mass and Energy

1.87-3 To refer to a measure of energy is to refer to a difference of potential states. The concept of a state, structure, or configuration/pattern, and ultimately the concept of matter/mass itself, has the nature and essence of the modality of the omniscient. The concept of a relation between states, a comparison of possibilities in terms of probability, (potentiality) and ultimately the concept of energy itself, has the nature of the modality of the transcendent. The concept of measurement, interaction, transformation of states, force, power (and strength) and ultimately the concept of observation itself (light) has the nature and essence of the modality of the immanent.

1.75-19 Only things of Actuality can be measured/determined objectively. Potentiality, and anything of its kind (class/modality of the transcendent), can never be measured or determined (defined) objectively. Assessments of potentiality and improbability are of an intrinsically subjective nature.

1.87-9 An instance of observation (structured in no dimensions immanent) resolves an instance of an actuality (structured in one dimension; omniscient) from a class of potentialities (structured in two dimensions; transcendent). The event of selection itself does not have position within either of the dimensions of the class of potentialities or within the dimension of the selected actuality. The selection/observation in itself is more basic than either the selected or the selector.

The Maxim of Persistence: Within a domain, the persistence of an eventity is positively proportional to the integral of the energy/strength per relation across the total number of relations (1).

1.87-4 Interaction (light) is more fundamental than (the basis of) both matter and energy.
Matter and energy themselves are conjugate to each other with respect to the nature of light.

1.87-5 Light, matter, and energy are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable. There can be no matter that is fully and completely without energy (potentiality) and interactivity. There can be no interactivity that is completely without structure (matter, limitation, pattern, uniquity, separation) and completely without potentiality (energy). There can be no potentiality that is completely without substance (matter) and accessibility (interaction).

1.87-6 Before there can be any (slight degree of) light, there must be (significant degrees of) energy/potentiality.
Before there is any (slight degree of) matter/actuality, there must be (significant degrees of) light (interactions).
Before there is any (slight degree of) energy/potentiality, there must be (significant degrees of) matter.

1.87-7 The concept of energy is isomorphic with the concept of potentiality.
The concept of potentiality is a compound of the concepts of probability and of possibility.
The concepts of probability and of possibility are two of the six fundamental intrinsics of a/any/the/all interaction(s).
Therefore, energy is an inherent aspect of a/any/the/all interaction(s).

1.87-8 The concept of matter is isomorphic with the concept of actuality. The concept of mass is in reference to the inverse degree of the potentiality of the perception of the content of a world to change. All of the structure/pattern/content of a world itself consists of interactions. Thus, mass is inversely proportional to the degree of the potentiality of interactions of interactions.

1.87-10 The more confined and isolated, the more dynamicism and potentiality will be developed.
The smaller and more confined an interaction is, the more energy will be required to perceive it.



Notes:
[1] In the IDM metaphysics, inertia (mass) and pattern (structure) are considered to be equivalent (isomorphic by way of the Mach Principle). In effect, the beingness of inertia, the 'thing-ness' of a thing, is defined by its relationship of change to all other things (also, thereby, having inertia). The total structure of these relationships is considered in terms of their changes, i.e. as a being of pattern.


Domain Constants

1.89-1 The Planck constant and the speed of light are fundamental metrics of a domain in that they define the microscopic and macroscopic limits of a domain (1). These constants define the very limits of what can be known as a part of the domain from a perspective within the domain (i.e., what is within the context of the domain as its content). Both of these constants define and separate that which is actually known and potentially knowable from that which is ultimately and irreducibly unknowable (2).

1.75-20 The degree to which a domain (and all eventities existing within that domain) will admit a degree of objectivity (for an observer within that domain) is proportional to the span (in terms of orders of magnitude) between the C constant to the H constant of the domain.

The C constant is the omniscient modal macroscopic domain limit, (the analogue of the speed of light, generalized and abstracted to any arbitrary domain). It defines that limit (boundary) at which changes in actuality (position/form) are no longer definable as being purely within the domain.

The H constant is the transcendent modal microscopic domain limit, (the analogue of the Planck constant, generalized and abstracted to any arbitrary domain). It defines that limit (boundary) at which changes in potentiality (abstraction/scale) are no longer definable as being relevant to the domain.

1.89-2 The speed of light defines what is unknowable in terms of context. In that time and space are context metrics, the speed of light defines a boundary between which times and spaces are knowable (static) and which are (intrinsically) unknowable. The Planck constant defines what is unknowable in terms of content. In that dynamic and static aspects of pattern (energy/mass; momentum and position) are metrics of content, the Planck constant defines a boundary between which dynamics are knowable, and which are (intrinsically) unknowable.

1.89-3 The degree of difference -- the span in orders of magnitude between the speed of light (the macroscopic/context domain limit) and the Planck constant (the microscopic/content domain limit) -- defines the total degree of structuralization of the domain, the total subjective intensity or bandwidth that the domain has in communication involvement with the self.

1.88-5 Where considering a relation between two selves (I, J) in/within/with a single common world in terms of the total information held by each (H) and in terms of the modalities:.

Where considering these relations
with a pure omniscient modality,
the equation of information is a pure equality (I=J=H).

Where considering these relations
with a pure immanent modality,
the equation of information is a pure summation (I+J=H).

Where considering these relations
with a pure transcendent modality,
the equation of information is a pure product (I*J=H).

1.88-6 Principle of Conjugation Opposition/ Inversion: When at the macroscopic limit of a domain that relations are defined in terms of summation (appearance of equations in the form of X+Y=0; with a basis in symmetry). When at the microscopic limit of a domain that relations are defined in terms of integration (appearance of equations in the form of X*Y=1; with a basis in continuity) (3).



Notes:
[1] The concept of 'this universe' as it is commonly used, is an instance of a domain (regardless of the (incorrect) assumptions of 'specialness' or 'singularity').

[2] These constants are intrinsic to all domains; every domain will have some representation of these two constants in some manner or other. However, each domain may have their own specific values for these constants, particular to itself.

[3] In some contexts (intermediate dimensionalities), the immanent modality equation type has the form of a power law (A=B^C) or a logarithmic relation (i.e., as leading to fractal type constructions). In this manner, one may regard fractals (and/or points) as immanent, lines as omniscient, and planes as transcendent. However, depending on context (as for example, when considering the duality between points and lines), these modality associations would be changed.



Aspects of Time

1.86-1 There are three models of time; linear time, cyclic time, and simultaneous time.
These have the modalities of immanent, omniscient and transcendent, respectively.
These three models of time are distinct, inseparable and non-interchangeable.

1.86-2 The nature of time appears linear when one attempts to consider the relationship between self and world from the perspective of the immanent (personal experience within a world). The nature of time appears to be cyclic when one considers the relationship between self and world using an omniscient perspective (impersonal, objective, detached, from a very remote viewpoint). The nature of time appears to be simultaneous when one considers the relationship between self and world in purely transcendental terms (one self in many worlds, a perspective from many places at once).

Time is a basic feature of each experience. Wherever there is a focus of consciousness (awareness), experience will be organized as a linear awareness. Relative to this focus, more physical aspects of one's being (in the direction of the world) will have a time nature which is more cyclic. More spiritual aspects of one's being (in the direction of the Self) will have a nature which is more simultaneous.

1.86-3 Both cyclic time and simultaneous time are defined in the terms of linear time.

1.86-4 The degree to which time is regarded as objective is proportional to the degree that time seems to resemble a dimension of space.
The degree to which time is regarded as subjective is proportional to the degree that time seems to resemble a dimension of possibility.

1.86-6 The linear model of time has three aspects, past, present, and future. The image of the past as known in the present has the nature of the omniscient. Perception in the present has the nature of the immanent. The expectation of the future, as defined in the present, has the nature of the modality of the transcendent.

1.86-7 From the perspective of the immanent self (the scale of the mesoscopic, the absolute boundary of consciousness and unconsciousness), past and future are asymmetric and conjugate to one another (and are defined in the terms of continuity). From a perspective which is purely omniscient (at the scale of the absolute macroscopic limit of a domain) past and future will appear to be symmetric. From the perspective of the absolute microscopic limit of a domain, past and future are identical, and are defined in terms of a strict discontinuity of moments.

1.86-8 For all self perception in the present it must seem (cannot not seem) that the past is static, fixed, has fixed form, and could, at least in principle, be fully knowable and known (1). For all self perception in the present, it must seem (cannot not seem) that the future is dynamic, free, unknowable, and has no form. It must appear to all in the present that the future cannot ever, even in possibility, be fully known.

The past is the known. The present is the unknown. The future is the unknowable.

1.86-9 The single actuality of the one present arises out of a multiplicity of potential futures.
The one single existence of the past arises out of the multiplicity of interactions in the present.
The quality of one's future arises from the plurality of one's past.

1.86-10 Linear time is understood in terms of change. Perception of change is understood in terms of comparison, of difference. Degrees of difference are a zero positive measure. Linear time is always zero positive.

1.86-11 Experience is. Perception is. Subjective time is.

1.86-12 There must (cannot not) be experience. There must (cannot not) be perception. There must (cannot not) be subjective time. In the single instance of perception, the meaning of subjective time and objective time are the same.

1.86-13 In a class of perceptions, the ratio between the temporal and the spatial aspects of each perception are fixed to be the same. This binds (constrains) the class of perceptions (otherwise free) to be (considered) as interactions with a single domain.

1.86-14 Time is an aspect of all events, as an intrinsic of those events. Energy (potentiality, relations of system states) is an aspect of perception, rather than perception being an aspect of energy. All of perception/experience involves time. An experience does not happen in time; time is an aspect of an experience.

Time is an aspect of events in the same manner that a horizon is an aspect of perception (one cannot not have a horizon).
One's perception relative to one's self is always zero motion.
In the same way, the 'speed of light' is always a constant (consistent).

1.86-16 Where the incommensuration theorem asserts that the fundamental basis of consideration cannot regard anything as being both wholly symmetric and wholly continuous, that which is known or defined to be continuous must be asymmetric.

1.86-17 Context and potentiality are asymmetric, and have direction/directivity. Aspects of interaction/measurement/comparison which are contextual will have directivity/asymmetry.

1.86-18 Within perception, there is (cannot not be) an arrow of time that distinguishes past from future. Within perception, there is (cannot not be) an arrow of space, which distinguishes near from far. Within perception, there is (cannot not be) an arrow of possibility.

1.86-19 The essence of the concept of evolution has the same basis as the essence of the necessary asymmetry of potentiality.

2.65-6 The apparent ratio of transit between subjective and objective time depends on the span of one's consciousness across multiple domains, the degree of structuring of each domain, and the degree of novelty in each domain.

The degree to which one's subjective experience of time exceeds that of their objective experience of time (with respect to a given world) is proportional to the degree to which one's process of mind involves 1) many levels of depth (with great density/richness of quality and feeling), 2) many full transitions of state and orientation (the frequency of novelty in one's experience), and 3) the degree to which the context of self changes.

The degree to which one's subjective experience of time seems to be exceeded by that of the objective experience of the world (that 'time passes quickly') is proportional to the degree that one's consciousness involves only one level of consciousness (one structure and form; a singularity of feeling), when the degree of novelty, richness, and quality is low, and when the degree to which the context of self remains the same.



Notes:
[1] Even the past cannot be fully known: a person born into a life can only rely on "histories", "signs", and "records" of what came "before", all of which are incomplete abstractions of the "original real events". Beyond this indirect level of certainty, no definite meaning can be assigned to the past having an exact and definite (knowable) state. Varying degrees of probabilistic prediction can be reached, but only with an accuracy which diminishes the farther away one tries to extrapolate from the current here and now, in time, space, domain of abstraction, and scale.


On the Nature of the Being of Time

Basically, asking whether or not time does or does not exist is similar to asking whether the horizon does or does not exist. When one asks the same conventional questions about the existence or non-existence of time one has the same sort of problems that one would find if one would ask those same questions about the horizon.

With respect to self, the horizon is always in the same place, somewhere far away. When one tries to move toward the horizon, it moves with one's perspective, because it is an element of one's perception. The horizon is created out of perception, more than it is created out of anything that "exists" apart from ourselves.

In the same way, time is created "out of perception". With respect to a person, time is always moving exactly in one direction, straight forward. When one tries to "catch up" with time, or change the direction of the flow of time, one has the same sort of problems that one would if one were trying to "catch up" with the horizon. The net effect is that the horizon is in the same "place", no matter how fast one is moving or where one is standing. In consideration of theories like general relativity, the same sort of phenomena shows up. Regardless of the motion of the observer, his sense of time is always exactly the same, always straight forward.

In the same way that the horizon exists as an aspect of one's perception on the surface of a world, time exists as an aspect of one's perception in a domain. In the same way that the horizon does not have any sort of substantial or objective nature beyond an effect of the event of perception itself, time does not have any sort of substantial or objective nature beyond being an aspect of perception itself.

Where considering from a transcendental perspective, as assuming that one is standing at 'all locations at once', there would be no effective concept of 'a horizon'. Similarly, when in a transcendental orientation with respect to a domain, time becomes 'simultaneous' and has no effective realization. However, it is intrinsic to the nature of being in interaction with a domain to have a self at a locus. Similarly, it is intrinsic to the nature of having an interaction with a domain that time will be an aspect of one's experience. Any act of perception will create a (subjective) sense of time, in the same way that the simple act of perception creates a personal horizon.

In a similar manner as with the horizon, one cannot extend the concept of time to be considered as an objective context (i.e., independent of one's subjective perception). For example, map makers do not extrapolate 'the horizon' to any particular location on the map. On modern maps, one does not usually find a circle or a line with the label 'the world ends here'. As such, it is unreasonable to try to extrapolate from one's personal sense of time to a framework more inclusive of other people (or anything outside of ourselves) in some fundamental manner. Similarly, to regard the external frame of reference of time as in some way more basic than the time frame of reference that is within self is to allow the real existential difficulties to begin. Instead of taking one's own natural, internal frame of reference and using that as the basis of time, one is expected (conventionally) to start with an external reference, and then try to derive a sense of time from the external reference. This is to effectively value the external sense of time over the internal one, (considering it more "valid" in some basic sense). To wonder where the personal sense of time 'comes from' is simply foolish.

Physicists have been trying to derive some sort of fundamental "arrow of time" for several decades now, using the standard equations of physics (i.e., trying to account for why time "flows" in the direction that it does (where the equations are (mostly) bi-directional and do not in themselves care whatever direction time flows (considerations of symmetry etc.) or why there is even an experience of time at all).

Trying to determine why one has a subjective sense of time using any sort of external, or objective criteria/method/process is an impossible task because of the very nature of time itself. It's like trying to survey the horizon or draw a line on a map and say "The world ends here". The author disagrees that any sort of "objective clock time" is a complete frame of reference in any metaphysically transcendent sense.

As an inherent aspect of interaction, (i.e. of both perception and of expression) time is inherently both subjective and objective. Wherever self is, wherever self interacts (and has being), that self will have time (and the arrow of time). This will remain so, regardless of whatever "higher plane" of consciousness one happens to inhabit. For example, even the experiences one has while dreaming have a sense of the passage of (linear) time.

Time cannot be found in an equation, or in anything more "objective and solid", than the process of the perceptual interaction itself (which is rather insubstantial). What physics must assume to implement the scientific method itself (including the assumption of subjective time) cannot be studied by physics. Physics cannot study the assumption and technique of (and the correctness of the assumption and technique of) the scientific method by using the scientific method. Physics cannot study that which it must assume.

In that measurement, as realized in the scientific method, is an interaction, it therefore has and assumes all of the intrinsics of interaction. Along with notions like content and context, the subjective and the objective, notions like force and time are intrisnsics of interaction. In that it is inherent to the nature of time to be a common context of both the subjective and the objective, the concept of time is of a purely metaphysical nature (if time were only the context of the objective, it could be claimed to have a purely physical nature). Time is not another dimension of space. It is a common coordinating aspect (context) of directivity in interaction. Time is not only physical, it is also metaphysical. Physics, as the study of the physical, cannot define, or study, that what it must assume to be before it begins.

If one defines time with respect to the interaction between self and world, there is a "time" basis with respect to each self in whatever domain that self happens to be "in". The above scenario follows easily because each "self" has its own frame of reference that is "made" out of the very process of perception (as a special case of interaction) itself. Because time is defined with respect to the interaction, each interacting self will have its own past, present, and future.

One cannot "run away" from this frame of reference any more than one can run away from the horizon. Similarly, one may understand why the speed of light is a constant if one compares it to one's horizon (as a metaphor), because both of these terms are defined with respect as a relation of (interaction to) self.

The "linear time" stream that one may call 'the consensus universe' is a reconstructive alignment of all of these "times", in the same way that a common space is constructed out of all of the immediate interactions to form the/a "consensus domain structure". One may even consider that the action of these 'coordination points' is to establish (as a place of greater potential) a coordination (an increase in the degree of objectivity) between domains of experience. These places represent focal points of consensus, an alignment of images and dreams so as to provide the basis for composing single interactions into consensus worlds. Such locations may be considered as "origin" points for "coordinate rotations", transformations, and other comparison operators, necessary for the domain structure to be consistently maintained.



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]