Current draft of my Field Ontology

[Cred]

Since the last draft of my ontological cosmology, my theory has become A LOT more streamlined. It seems to have moved from the domain of analytical idealism to the domain of field ontology.

Of course, I have been inspired by physics, however, I am using every concept borrowed from physics as a metaphysical principle that applies to all of reality, including physics on every level of granularity because of the self-similar nature of reality. 

What is Reality?

Field is the absolute. Reality is space.

A space is a duality with an outer boundary, and an inner boundary that separates the dualities. The space has the field quality.

The outer boundary of the space is necessary to prevent the disintegration of the space and the inner boundary is necessary to prevent the collapse of the space.

The outer boundary allows the field of the space to resonate. Resonance is what happens, when the frequency of the wave match the outer boundary, such that it becomes a standing wave and therefore allows for existence, which is an instance of being which is field.

Any wave with the same frequency with an inverted phase in the same space will cause destructive interference and therefore the complete negation of the standing wave, which is non-existence.

A space with no wave is empty.

The qualities of field

Field has three qualities: Unity, duality and wave, which itself has four qualities: Frequency, Spectrum, Amplitude and Phase.

Unity is the devine desire for the collapse of duality, which is space, into singularity.

Duality is the gift from god that establishes space and allows for existence.

Frequency is sequentiality and causes the manifestation of logic and the object.

Spectrum is simultaneity and causes the manifestation of meaning and the symbol.

Amplitude is feeling and causes the manifestation of phenomenon and the subject.

Conclusion

Of course, this is just another draft. The theory will change again, when I try to integrate more concepts into it, especially from physics, about which I need to learn a lot more. It might not seem like it, but as it stands, it explains A LOT. 

There are still open questions and inconsistencies like:

• What exactly is phase?
• How exactly does resonance and dissonance happen?
• What is a mind, and how does the distribution of the three attributes (neurodivergence-neurotypicalness distribution) arise?
  • Idea: Mind is a topology (resonance body) that creates a space with special attributes
  • The HSP topology creates a ton of feedback (wave is trapped inside for longer). It creates resonance when there is a pleasant feeling and dissonance when there is an unpleasant feeling.
  • The Autism topology creates resonance when a wave is coherent and dissonance when it is incoherent.
  • Neurotypical topology creates resonance when a wave fits its identity and dissonance when it is in conflict with its identity.
• If the field comes first, then what comes second? The wave or the space? Does the wave create the space (high frequencies create smaller spaces with a frequency of the Planck length creating singularity and lower frequencies create bigger spaces) or does the space create the wave? If it's the latter, then where does the space come from?
• Where do these forces of unity and duality come from? Do high frequencies create unity and low frequencies duality or is it the other way around or not at all what's happening?
• Is all of this in some way related to physics or just Deepak Chopra style pseudoscience?

I'm pretty confident that I'm onto something, also because:

(Fields of sense seems to be a lot more limited to my theory since it seems to assume spectrum, which is meaning, is the most fundamental, which is only a part of my theory)

Edited 16 hours ago by Cred

[PolyPeter]

This is epic work and very interesting. Congrats.

 

 

The triadic structure of wave qualities is elegant, mapping them to logic/meaning/feeling respectively gives the framework real descriptive and explanatory power.

The resonance mechanism as the condition for existence, rather than just asserting things exist, is a meaningful step toward grounding ontology in process rather than substance.

 

Where I think there is a gap

The core claim is Field is the absolute. But the framework then immediately assigns qualities to Field: Unity, Duality, and the capacity for Wave.

This means Field isn't truly absolute, it's a structured first principle.

A genuine absolute can't have internal structure, because structure requires something that determines why those structures and not others.

You've smuggled in a second-order question: what determines the specific qualities of Field?

This shows up concretely in Unity is the divine desire for collapse.

Desire is a relational, intentional property, it points toward something.

Embedding desire in the absolute means your absolute already contains directionality before anything exists to have direction.

That's not a minor detail, it's an assumption with no justification.

 

The diagnostic criterion

When evaluating any foundational ontology, the question is:

does the proposed absolute genuinely require nothing prior to it, or does explaining it require invoking concepts that are themselves unexplained?

Right now, Field requires Unity and Duality to be what it is, but neither Unity nor Duality are derived, they're just asserted.

 

There is something more solid than any of these concepts: direct experience.

The best an ontology can do is point toward it, like a finger pointing at the moon.

The map is not the territory, and no matter how elegant the map, the territory was always there first.

An honest ontology knows this about itself, its ultimate validation isn't internal consistency or explanatory power, it's whether it successfully directs you toward something you can verify firsthand. If it never points beyond itself, it's just symbols talking to symbols.

 

The physics question

The distinction isn't about using physics concepts, it's about whether the framework makes incorrect predictions you'd have to abandon if falsified.

Metaphysics borrowed from physics can be legitimate, but it needs to be honest that it's operating in the philosophical domain, not extending physics itself.

The open questions you listed are good ones. The topology of mind direction is the most promising thread, it's specific enough to potentially generate testable claims.

 

 

[Cred]

30 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

This is epic work and very interesting. Congrats.

Thanks! Also thanks for the critique.

I agree that the unity-, duality- and the Wave-qualities of field are assumed. But I want to point out that these are super uncontroversial claims to make period. Like who would disagree with that? "There is stuff that kinda sticks together for some reason, but there is also space and separation between stuff". In physics the "everything is a wave" thing is also super uncontroversial.

[PolyPeter]

Yes, you are right, this are common terms, but what are you trying to build, actually?

A true ontology? or an agreeable ontology?

What is the motivation behind your work, if you may share?

[Cred]

49 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

A true ontology? or an agreeable ontology?

What would a true ontology look like?

[PolyPeter]

14 minutes ago, Cred said:

What would a true ontology look like?

If only I knew

Isn't it worth it to try and build it, anyways?

[PolyPeter]

much of the discoveries within science were accidents

[Cred]

12 hours ago, PolyPeter said:

What is the motivation behind your work, if you may share?

Symbolically speaking, I want to use this theory to get as many people back into the garden Eden as possible (the way to do this is actually kinda trivial if once understands the theory, but it is very hard to do without knowledge about the theory). I would like to dissolve the punishment of the original sin and defeat alienation and therefore bring back the harmony between unity and duality (end polarization). I know that if this is true, this technically symbolically makes me the Messiah lol. But I really do believe, the theory has this much power potentially.

I have an idea for where unity and duality comes from. I think it comes from entropy. The way a system maximize entropy is not just with chaos through seperation, but utilizing order to create more chaos. If you think about it, a human might be a very low entropy being, but it produces a lot more entropy in its lifetime due to their impact on the environment. If I remember correctly, even the most extreme example of unity, which is singularity, produces a lot of entropy at the end through the Hawking radiation. However, I've also heard that a black hole has some specific entropy, which kind of doesn't compute for me yet.

So in that view, the existence of both unity and duality is just the most likely outcome statistically, according to thermodynamics. I want to add that I'm not a specialist at all of these are only ideas.

This offers an interesting attempt at defining mind: A system is more "mind-like", the more complex it is and the less entropy it has. So a gas cloud, for example, is a system, and it is complex, but it doesn't have low entropy, so it is not mind. A human brain is a system that is more complex than the brain of a fish. Their can exist structures beyond the brain that are also mind-like, like an ecosystem, which kind of makes perfect sense in my opinion.

Edited 13 hours ago by Cred

[PolyPeter]

Hey, 

That's quite a motivation right there, thanks for sharing!

 

 

There's something in your definition of mind.

You say a system is more mind-like the more complex and low-entropy it is. It implies that mind emerges from physical organization.

 

think of the following inquiry: why is there experience at all?

You could perfectly describe all the complexity and entropy dynamics of a human brainn, and still not have explained why there's something it feels like to be that system.

This is the hard problem of consciousness, and no thermodynamic argument can ever touch it, because thermodynamics describes structure and behaviour, not experience.

What's most interesting is that your motivation, returning to the Garden of Eden, dissolving alienation, sounds like it actually requires experience to be fundamental, not emergent.

 

If mind is just organized complexity, what exactly are you trying to reunite with unity?

[PolyPeter]

You say amplitude is feeling, that unity is a divine desire, that duality is a gift from god.

These aren't field theory concepts, these are consciousness concepts.
You're describing something that wants, feels, and gives.

So why not just say Field == Consciousness?

If you did, a lot of your open questions resolve immediately.

The wave/space chicken-and-egg problem dissolves, consciousness doesn't need a prior cause because it's the only thing that doesn't require one.

And your Messiah motivation finally has ontological groundin, you're not reuniting structures, you're reuniting experience with itself.

What's stopping you from making that move explicitly?

Edited 7 hours ago by PolyPeter

[PolyPeter]

btw, I'm just trying to understand your ontology in the deepest way I can, maybe the interaction can help you enhance it

[Cred]

26 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

This is the hard problem of consciousness, and no thermodynamic argument can ever touch it, because thermodynamics describes structure and behaviour, not experience.

It seems like you're talking about something like "Mary's room". The concept of "redness" is also integrated in my model. I am calling this neutral kind of experience "neutral resonance". For example, if you have a person who is only HSP and zero autistic and maximum ADHD (minimum meaning). They will walk around and only see the beauty of "isness" and not the beauty of pattern, nor the beauty of meaning. That's why HSP's love color and can't survive without it for example.

The way this works in my example is that a system has more of that sensitivity, if it contains more feedback loops. In my model, a violin is a sensitive system for example, because the cavity in the violin creates a feedback of the sound inside, which amplifies the wave.

[Cred]

39 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

What's most interesting is that your motivation, returning to the Garden of Eden, dissolving alienation, sounds like it actually requires experience to be fundamental, not emergent.

 

If mind is just organized complexity, what exactly are you trying to reunite with unity?

There is a phenomenon that only starts appearing once a low entropy system is complex enough. It's the ideal. The ideal creates the possibility of judgment (not knowledge. It's the tree of judgment not the tree of knowledge.) and from that the ability of self-judgement and from that the ability for self-alienation. What I'm trying to reunite is every being that has passed this threshold and is actively living a life in self-alienation.

Yaweh and Zeus symbolise the ideal

Edited 6 hours ago by Cred

[Cred]

44 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

The wave/space chicken-and-egg problem dissolves, consciousness doesn't need a prior cause because it's the only thing that doesn't require one.

And your Messiah motivation finally has ontological groundin, you're not reuniting structures, you're reuniting experience with itself.

What's stopping you from making that move explicitly?

I actually did this, back when my theory was still an analytical idealism. I have not come to the point of merging them properly. So I'm open.

I think the idea would be that the idea of an infinitely complex low entropy system, which is god consciousness or something, already exists prior to anything. I think that checks out. I need to think more about it though and maybe delve more into Bernardo Kastrup. However, right now I'm more interested in this idea of the mind-topology. Their exists an interesting field called spectral geometry that seems relevant. Right now, I'm trying to see a connection between this idea of the topology and a neural network. But I can't steer my brain into anything anyway so we'll see what happens.

I'm interested, why do you think that consciousness doesn't require a prior?

Edited 6 hours ago by Cred

[PolyPeter]

I really enjoy listening to Kastrup's arguments, but he is missing a key component. LOVE. not as a romantic notion, but as a structural basis for existence. He is smart as hell, and very precise, but he himself admits that he carries within him a deep pain, and that he also recognizes that he does not see Love everywhere he looks at. 

Because it is painful. Integrating OTHER as your own manifestation requires a lot of psychological work and deep intelligence.

 

Coming back to the point, I think there's something to say about the different methods for building an ontology, the scientific one and the complete one (for a lack of a better term).

The idea of explaining X in terms of Y comes from the scientific method, and it's extraordinarily powerful for navigating the material world. But it carries hidden assumptions: that there's always a more fundamental level, that reality is compositional, that observation is separate from what's observed.

When you try to apply that method to reality itself, not to how things work, but to what anything is at all, you hit a wall.

Because the question "what is consciousness?" can't be answered by pointing to something else.
If you explain it in terms of fields, you still need to ask what fields are.
If you explain fields in terms of mathematics, you need to ask what math is.
The regress never stops, unless you find something that doesn't need to be explained in terms of something else.

The only candidate is the one thing you can't coherently deny: that there is experience. Right now, reading this. Before any concept, before any model, there's being. You have to be before you can think about being.

Science is a tool built inside consciousness, to navigate within consciousness. Using it to investigate consciousness itself is like using a ruler to measure the concept of length.

 

 

Consciousness == awareness == the entire universe == You == God == Infinity == the source

 

You can awaken to the fact that you are creating the entire universe, and then also how you are doing it.

But this requires something different than working on a conceptual framework. This requires activley looking for what's ultimatley true, no matter what gets in the way.

 

[PolyPeter]

2 hours ago, Cred said:

complex enough.

Do you mean, complex enough to give rise to meta-consciousness, meaning, being conscious that you are conscious?

And also, why would a rock not get reunited with God, if it is a temporary manifestation after all too? 

I mean, after all, we NEED these lower level phenomena to get to the point of this higher-level phenomena with emergent property as meta-consciousness

Why are you leaving non-living (or non-metaconscious) parts of God outside of the integration to God?

 

Maybe a rock was just a couple of atoms in a certain way a couple of decades ago, but, when time passes, it becomes the structure for your own body, which then gets to think about things in the usual sense.

 

A rock does not think, but it takes part in the process of the creation of a rock-that-thinks (humans)

[Cred]

1 hour ago, PolyPeter said:

but he is missing a key component. LOVE. not as a romantic notion, but as a structural basis for existence.

I agree with you completely. Love is the centerpiece of my model. The sentence "[Love is the] structural basis for existence" is a very elegant way to summarize one of my biggest points with this ontology. I have described precisely how this structure of existence which I call "space", can be destroyed, such that love is absent in this post:

It's my best post so far. Have you read it? If no than this is a cool thing that we are on the same page in regard to what Love is.

This is the relevant part:

Quote

The solution of the struggle is the compromise between unity and duality. This state is represented in the couple dance. The couple dance simultaneously creates flow, movement, variation and oscillation. 

It allows for unity through contact and duality through the centrifugal force created from the rotation. The couple dance is a stable, yet deeply personal space. In that way, it allows for flourishing. 

In my model, Love is the same thing as symbiosis

Edited 3 hours ago by Cred

[PolyPeter]

First of all, I feel this (coming back and forth on the ontology details) is epic

The huge amount of common ground between our work, simply insane

 

Regarding the other post, yes, i've read it. I was trying to understand how to point the most important difference between your notion of the Void, and my own. Here it goes.

 

You describe the Void as apathy, nihilism, loss of will, the dark night of the soul.
That's a real human experience, but it's a psychological state, not an ontological ground.

 

The Void I'm pointing at is something else entirely. It is not empty in the sense of lacking something.
It is the absolute absence of any distinction whatsoever, prior to space, prior to time, prior to the difference between something and nothing, prior to unity and duality themselves, prior to your Field.
There is no inside or outside. No boundary. No wave. No observer. No observed.
Not darkness, because darkness requires light to be its opposite.
Not silence, because silence requires sound.
Not nothingness, because nothingness is still a concept and concepts require a mind to hold them.

It is what remains when every possible distinction, including the distinction between existence and non-existence, has been removed.

And I want to be honest about something: the only way to really understand what I'm describing is not philosophical. No amount of reading Kastrup or refining your field ontology will get you there.

 

You have to become it.

 

That means temporarily leaving behind every structure you identify with. Your thoughts, your feelings, your sense of being someone, your topology, your resonance body, everything that makes you Cred. Not as a metaphor. Literally.

That's why I said it's not depressing. From the outside, the dissolution of all structure looks like the worst possible thing. From the inside, there is no inside left to suffer it.

But I won't pretend it's safe. It requires going somewhere your model can't follow you, because the model dissolves too.

Most people who approach it turn back. The ones who don't turn back, come back different.

[Cred]

2 hours ago, Cred said:

I have not come to the point of merging them properly.

I do want to do this, but I need some time to ponder. If you want to read about that older state, this is the relevant post:

I need to reconstruct the argument I've made there in my head before I can talk about consciousness

[Cred]

32 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

First of all, I feel this (coming back and forth on the ontology details) is epic

Same! I knew that someday somebody on this forum would see the potential in my ideas, I just didn't know when this would happen.

32 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

I was trying to understand how to point the most important difference between your notion of the Void, and my own.

I agree with you. I am differentiating between emptiness and the void. The void happens, when somebody who is still too identified with existence (inside samsara (?)) gets a glimpse of emptiness sunyata, which is precisely what you are describing. This is why I am saying:

Quote

[the void] is the ultimate risk of neither unity nor duality, neither infinite being nor finite being which is nirvana.

Maybe I'm using the word nirvana wrong. The way I understand it is that emptiness itself is not a state but a concept, with nirvana being the state where this concept is embodied like you say.

Edited 2 hours ago by Cred