Does this triadic ontological framework work?

[u/SelectSnow5814]

This philosophy came about from the question of why nature seems to be often fighting itself, eg: It is the one that creates the disease but also has the tools to create the antidote.

I began with mapping out the first primeval forces:

Cogo: (+ charged) This is the force of utter destruction and disorder (i.e. entropy) It also reproduces every time Promo advances slightly (read promo under.)

Promo: (+ charged) This is the more individual smaller force that strives to maintain constant order and stillness, it is the direct antithetical of Cogo, and with time tries to eradicate Cogo entirely.

Retoro: (≠) This we can think of as the natural ceiling that is neutral, which is why I assigned it a an unequal sign, it acts as a direct pushback so that Promo can never become stronger than Cogo. If it were to happen (and is entirely outside of logic for me to explain and therefore is my escape hatch) it would reverse Cogo into a negatively charged force, literally breaking reality.

Now as is apparent I decided to use electromagnetism to exemplify how these forces work, these all repel from each other, but that repellence while being self contained in a universe and not being able to escape from these three forces is the foremost makeup of everything. This clash and friction between Chaos and Order, that never ceases, in the middle of this is where life and history and everything occurs. If we strip reality to its bare bones, we discover everything is an exchange between power and decompression of that power. (e.g. Earlier I mentioned I could not explain what would happen if Promo became more powerful than Cogo, that is me trying to self contain the ontology of the universe (Cogo) within words that are precise (Promo) and I said I could not explain what is beyond logic because I am a creature built on logic and cannot think outside of what I am (Retoro). I have formulas I am creating to fulfill my reasoning, but so far my idea is nascent.

[u/226757]

The laws of physics explain things like order and chaos perfectly fine. I'm not sure what work these concepts are actually doing to explain anything because the laws of nature already do that on their own

[u/incognitosaurus_rex → u/226757]

Second law of thermodynamics. People often mistake the geometric simplicity of low entropy/high ordered states with complexity though. It's difficult to grasp at first but increasing entropy (chaos) actually provides more opportunity for complexity than low entropy states (order)

[u/SelectSnow5814 → u/226757]

They do not explain it... they try to calculate it, entropy is one of the most unknown concepts in physics. This is more of a logical/philosophical approach and while I work with physics to build these models, it does not explain it... These try to deconstruct very complex physics and logic concepts into standardized models that when revised, are logically sound, the point is not that physics can "replace" it but that it, at this moment does not.

[u/226757 → u/SelectSnow5814]

If the forces physicists describe don't explain the world then why do yours? Your concepts just describe the way things operate just like physics do, but you can always ask more fundamental questions. I just don't see what the difference between your idea and scientific explanations is. Why does your idea count as an explanation but scientific ideas don't?

[u/SelectSnow5814 → u/226757]

They certainly do, and I am not not denying that, the only thing is I introduced a new system into the playing field and wanted to see the logical inconsistencies and problems with the conceptualization. Physics explains a lot, but it does not explain the philosophy of these states which is what I want to break down while tweaking where I see fit. if you could review what I said and find any logical problems that would be greatly appreciated.

[u/226757 → u/SelectSnow5814]

Being logically consistent is a very low bar. It's very easy to have a theory that doesn't contain contradictions. If that's all you're asking no one will have much to say. That's going to make it easy to feel like your idea is unassailable because you're going to be able to dismiss any other criticism by saying "that's not what I'm asking for".

If you want a theory that explains the "philosophy of these states" then it has to be well defined and help us learn things we don't already know and there should hopefully be some evidence you can point to to support it.

I just don't see why introducing these concepts and pointing to them as the ultimate reality is better than what scientists do when they talk about fields, forces, laws, particles, energy etc as the ultimate reality especially considering they can actually make predictions and theres real math involved. If you want to explain physical phenomena your theory doesn't actually say anything unless it can say it with math

[u/SelectSnow5814 → u/226757]

This is fair criticism, but to be clear, there is evidence to support this system, in every system there is a frictive force and a stabilizing force, there are also clear mathematical formulas to describe this induction. And I would not say it is a low bar, but if we want to understand how this philosophy can be useful in the practical way, think of it like this. To remove friction and chaos is impossible, we should know that, but we should try to move our actions knowing that friction is what is. On a more universal level... calculating this precisely (for physics only does map out for natural systems, this applies to all) we can literally circumvent future hazards by understanding this philosophy, in other words, if done well enough, we can safeguard minor problems, catastrophe, and humanity as a whole. So let me raise the bar, do you think every single growth requires friction? Do you think the universe as a whole requires friction to grow? And how does this philosophy explain that friction and where is it lacking?

[u/226757 → u/SelectSnow5814]

Also, entropy is not an unknown concept. It just follows from the fact that there are way more possible disordered states than ordered states, so in a system with lots of moving parts once it becomes disordered it probably won't return to an ordered state

[u/jliat]

1062 (1885) If the world had a goal, it must have been reached. If there were for it some unintended final state, this also must have been reached. If it were in any way capable of a pausing and becoming fixed, of “being,” if in the whole course of its becoming it possessed even for a moment this capability of “being,” then all becoming would long since have come to an end, along with all thinking, all “spirit.” The fact of “spirit” as a form of becoming proves that the world has no goal, no final state, and is incapable of being.

Nietzsche - Will to Power.

There maybe something similar in physics, symmetry breaking?

[u/Spirited-Gain1457]

Your framework reminded me of a little model I’ve been playing with myself.

Mine is also triadic, but the three parts are:

Existence → Differentiation → Syntax

Very roughly:

Existence means there is something there at all.

Differentiation means distinctions can emerge within that existence.

Syntax means those distinctions begin to form relations, rules, structures, or patterns with one another.

The important part is that the process is recursive.

Once a set of differences and relations becomes stable enough, the whole structure can itself be treated as a new existence, which can then differentiate again and develop new syntax.

So:

Existence → Differentiation → Syntax → new Existence → ...

But underneath that, I tend to think of difference as the really important ingredient.

A meaningful difference creates a kind of theme/background split: something stands out only because something else does not.

Then I think a difference can disappear into the background in two opposite ways.

One is:

everything is different → no difference is meaningful

If everything is equally exceptional, the field becomes noise. Nothing really stands out.

The other is:

everything has the same difference → that difference stops functioning as a difference

Fashion is an easy example. A style may begin as a distinction, spread everywhere, and eventually become normal background.

Once an old difference becomes background, new differences can emerge against it.

So another way I sometimes describe the recursive motion is:

difference → theme/background → backgrounding → new difference → ...

That is probably why your model caught my attention. On the surface we both seem to have a three-part framework, but yours appears to describe three fundamental forces interacting, while mine is more about how existence produces differences, differences form syntax, and those structures become new existence recursively.

I’m still not sure what this model is actually useful for.

I just find it fun that the same pattern seems to appear in perception, culture, fashion, language, ecosystems, and social systems.

For now I’m mostly treating it as a conceptual toy and trying to find where it breaks.

[u/SelectSnow5814 → u/Spirited-Gain1457]

Beautiful! We are thinking upon the same grounds! Mine have direct impact on eachother in difference to yours but they are generally similar. And mine is literally right now titled the recursive paradigm. The difference, or what I title the repellence, the ability for incongruent forces to work together is what is beautiful. To answer what it's usefulness is I simply say this... calculating this precisely we can circumvent future hazards by understanding the literal equations of friction and how much will apply to a given situation. With mathematical modeling and logical fixation we can turn this vague theory into a formula for friction

[u/Spirited-Gain1457 → u/SelectSnow5814]

I should probably admit that I’m completely hopeless at mathematics 😆, so what I’m doing is probably closer to some kind of philosophy, I guess.

I mostly play with these structures conceptually and visually, and see what happens when I apply them to different things.

If you're curious, this is the mandala I drew from the framework:

[Tiny Puffology Mandala]

https://gs60419.github.io/assets/images/xiaopi-english-12-mandala.png

And this is a strange interactive toy I eventually built out of some of the same ideas:

[RT30: turning conflicting ideas into geometry]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ContradictionisFuel/comments/1tfqb2c/i_made_a_strange_rt30_toy_that_turns_conflicting

RT30 is probably much more complicated than the original little philosophy behind it, haha.

Feel free to play with them however you want. I’d actually be really curious to see how you interpret them through your Recursive Paradigm.

[u/SelectSnow5814 → u/Spirited-Gain1457]

It is certainly interesting, and the first mandala you provided is very very complex, the only thing I fear is something I call the problem of "over-saturation" or what is known in cybernetics and psychology as "environmental noise." When we try to simultaneously make a system that includes all of the fields included in your first diagram (Eg: Cognitive, Social.. etc.) we continue to go into such a crowded area, where can we truly find the intersection in all of these fields and applications? You said difference, which is beautiful, the only reason why my system is recursive is because they are repellent, only from force does change occur. Actually the fact that they are so uneasy is the very reason they maintain reality, they are jittery but when you see how these things can work on a scale that creates life, they truly work. Also just one thing I want to nitpick on, I created a neutral momentum stopper force called Retoro, this is to prevent what in your diagram was convergence and divergence right beside each other, because without something to catch them the universe would go haywire.

[u/Spirited-Gain1457 → u/SelectSnow5814]

I think I may have made that part of the mandala look more complicated than I intended.

Those six categories aren't six separate fields that I'm trying to combine into one giant system. They're closer to six different lenses for interpreting the same difference.

So, for example, one event can be read in terms of survival, resources, social effects, meaning, cognition, and so on. The event itself hasn't changed. What changes is the angle from which that difference is being interpreted.

In that sense, I'm not really asking where six different fields intersect. I'm asking how the same difference can produce different meanings depending on the lens or selection rule applied to it.

Your point about environmental noise is still interesting to me, though, because if too many possible differences are available at once, some kind of selection mechanism seems necessary before any of them become meaningful.

I'm actually working on a more intuitive English webpage for the framework now. It's still a work in progress, but I think it explains what I mean much more clearly than the mandala alone:

https://gs60419.github.io/tiny-puffology/index.html

[u/SelectSnow5814 → u/Spirited-Gain1457]

This is interesting, and I understand how the process can be read in different ways, but I think it mixes up too many views where so much nuance could be introduced. Here is my diagram, I added it to the original text body.

[u/Spirited-Gain1457 → u/SelectSnow5814]

I think my terminology may have made my framework look much more complicated than it actually is.

When I used labels like Survival, Physiological, Cognitive, Social, Narrative, and Meaning, I think it may have sounded like I was taking six different external fields and trying to look at the same thing from all six perspectives at once.

That's not really how I built it.

The six aren't six things I started with. They're the result of repeatedly unfolding a much simpler structure.

Very roughly:

0 → 1 → 2 → 3 → 6

0: undifferentiated
1: Difference
2: polarity
3: three spectra
6: each spectrum unfolds again into a + / − binary pair

So the six are really:

3 spectra × 2 poles = 6 positions.

The + and − don't mean good or bad. They just mark the two poles of each spectrum.

I can probably explain those three spectra much more clearly in cybernetic terms:

1. Differentiation spectrum: how a system encounters a difference

• + Δ Survival: difference between the system and its environment
• − π Physiological: difference occurring within the system itself

So the first question is basically: is the difference across the system boundary, or within it?

2. Existence spectrum: how a system responds to a difference

• + ψ Cognitive: difference as represented, distinguished, or modeled within the system
• − φ Social: difference between the system and other interacting systems

So now the question becomes: how does the system represent the difference, and how does it change its relationship with other systems?

3. Syntax spectrum: how a system incorporates a difference

• + η Narrative: difference between the system's states across time, allowing events to be integrated into a continuing sequence
• − Ω Meaning: difference relative to higher-order references, preferences, values, or goals

So here the question is: how does this difference become part of the system's history and affect how it will process future differences?

You can even read the six dynamically as a rough loop:

system–environment difference → internal state difference → representation → interaction → temporal integration → reference/value → action on the environment → new difference

So I'm not really combining six fields. I'm describing how one system can encounter, process, and internalize Difference through a structure generated by repeated differentiation.

The human-oriented names are just convenient representative labels for those six positions. They aren't the primitives underneath them.

I think I basically showed you the leaves first and accidentally made the tree look much more complicated than the seed it grew from. XD

[u/SelectSnow5814 → u/Spirited-Gain1457]

This is kind of crazy because we have stumbled across very similar systems. The only problem I see is this one :

• + Δ Survival: difference between the system and its environment

• − π Physiological: difference occurring within the system itself

  This is a great cybernetic analogy, and I thought about it too, but here you presuppose π to be autonomously generating feedback to create difference, which cannot work. The reason can be difference in Δ is because it meets two criteria.

1. Would itself be indifferent without a frictive comparator (here exemplified as π)
2. Has a second opposing variable to enter feedback intercourse with.

With these met, of course a system can work like this, after all, all friction is, is negation of imposing system stress.

[u/Spirited-Gain1457 → u/SelectSnow5814]

I think there's a small misunderstanding here: π isn't autonomously generating feedback in my model. It simply means a difference occurring within the system itself.

The comparator detects or captures that difference; it doesn't create it. For me, friction comes even later: it's one possible result of Difference being organized through a particular Syntax.

And I think friction is already directional and system-indexed: calling something “stress” and something else its “negation” depends on which system boundary or reference perspective we're using. So I think this may be where our models actually diverge. XD

[u/Splenda_choo]

The difference between dark and light is you. As above so below