Thoughts on the Theory of Ontomodality (wip name)

[UnbornTao]

@Cred Also, are you using AI to write your posts? If so, ease up on that and disclose it when you do. Just a heads-up.

[Cred]

@oOo I agree with most of what you're saying. But it seems like there are some misunderstandings. (Also I have realized some of these issues myself and fixed them by now)

The most important thing to realize is that ontomodality is not a psychology model anymore. So when you say "what your model describes is just a manifestation of physical reality" then I say, physical reality is just a manifestation of what my model describes (both statements are true depending on the lens). The reason why you believe that physical reality is the source of every structure is because it's true for you.

It is important to note that I'm not saying you're deluded, that you have to see it like me and that your observations are not relevant, which they are since I want my model to be true regardless of the lens. So I'm encouraging you to keep critiquing ontomodality from the holotaxonic perspective.

The Problem with essence

When I'm using the word existence, I don't mean essence. My model does not pose there is existence outside the now. It seems to be a blend of ontology and phenomenology: While ontology asks "what exists" and phenomenology asks "how is reality appearing in the now" while ignoring existence (epoché), my model seems to ask how existence itself appears in the now. Since I'm not a formally educated philosopher, I don't know if this is novel or even makes sense from the academic perspective, but I am planning to figure it out.

I hope you can see now that my methodology is entirely different from that of a medical student.

The problem with stability

I completely moved away from the claim that it is inherently special, how I chose the different modes. I think it's cool that the ones that I chose each point to some unique existing metaphysical theory (which makes analyzing them a lot easier). I also moved away from the claim, that unimodality is somehow more stable or better or more enlightened than polymodality for that reason.

I look at ontomodality from the perspective of linear algebra.

First a simple example to make it easier for people who are rusty on linear algebra:

If you want three directions (that are invertible) to traverse all 3d space, all you need to ensure, is that they don't lie on a plane, since then you can only traverse the 2d space of that plane. This means they need to be linearly independent.

The big metaphysical idea the model is based upon, is that human existence can be described by something like an N-dimensional vector space. (I don't know what N is. It might very well not be 6). What linear algebra now tells us, is that it does not matter which N vectors you choose, as long as they're linearly independent. Because if they are, you will still be able to span the entire N-dimensional vector space with them. (It is important to note that linear algebra show up in a lot of places)

So my approach is to keep searching for more modes that are orthogonal to the rest of them to increase the number of dimensions, my basismodes are spanning.

For example If I would throw "language sensitive" in the mix, it would not expand the current vector space with one additional dimension, since language is semiotaxonic. This means that taxonic, semionic and language-mode (Logonic or whatever) are not linearly independent. And the Loginic mode can be archieved through the mix of the Semionic and Taxonic modes.

Now, the most elegant way to do this is to normalize them (make them equal (to one)) and to make them orthogonal (this would make them "orthonormal basis vectors"). Now applied to the model, this means that each of the modes "should not have any component of each of the other modes" and that they should all have equal emphasis. 

This is why this is such a language game (and yes, it also happens to be a lot of fun). My theory is that we already have a set of vectors that span the vector space of human existence, which is the set of all words that have ever been invented but that the number N is much smaller than the number of all words because they are not all orthogonal to each other, obviously.

Interestingly, this is similar to how word embedding works in large language models. Without learning about LLMs, these insights would have not been inaccessible to me. 

My goal is to investigate this space and find at least one elegant enough way to span those N dimensions. (I need to find a cooler name for that number like O/Ω) 

Some questions are still open:

• Does this even make any sense to bring linear algebra into this
• How do you prove that the modes are linearly independent
• How do you normalize/equalize the modes

Here is a short by 3blue1brown that might clear up the idea of viewing language as a vector space:

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Cred

[Cred]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

@Cred Also, are you using AI to write your posts? If so, ease up on that and disclose it when you do. Just a heads-up.

No, I'm not using AI for writing and when I do, I will disclose it. (Yes, my hands indeed hurt from all the typing)

The reason how I can be so productive is because I currently invest all my energy into this. This also functions as an experiment on ontomodal alignment.

[UnbornTao]

14 minutes ago, Cred said:

No, I'm not using AI for writing and when I do, I will disclose it. (Yes, my hands indeed hurt from all the typing)

The reason how I can be so productive is because I currently invest all my energy into this. This also functions as an experiment on ontomodal alignment.

Got it.

[oOo]

@Cred I’m not persuaded you’ve engaged with my points deeply enough yet to warrant further response. The convergence constraint remains unanswered. If I weren’t tied up with other people’s work I’d engage more, but that’s the crunch point. I genuinely wish you well with the project.