Kudos for attempting to ground meaning, agency, and ethics in structural features of reality without appealing to theology or metaphysics. The progression from physical reliability to emergent agency is clear and intuitively powerful, and the framing of consequences as structural rather than moral is a strength. "Reliability” however, appears to be doing too much cross-layer work—bridging physics, biology, institutions, and ethics without fully decomposing the differences between them. The argument would benefit from tighter definitions, clearer layer separation, and a more explicit account of how descriptive viability becomes normatively relevant without reintroducing an “ought” implicitly.
Thanks for taking the time to read the article and for your thoughtful feedback. While I positioned this as a reconciliation of free will, I'm not actually making a philosophical argument. Viewed through a systems science lens, the principle does bridge physics, biology, institutions, and ethics. My goal is to share the principle, and invite testing from interested academics in different domains.
My position is that all systems require reliable relationships to maintain viability, coherence, or resilience. Either that premise is true or it is false.
If there is a counter example you would like to explore together I'd be happy to continue the dialogue as time permits. I look forward to learning from you!
I’ll check it out! When I wrote the dual order framework I thought I had discovered something like a relational law along side of physics. What I know now is that reliability governs coherence in all intelligible systems. My focus is on relational reliability (LR) so I’m looking forward to reading your analysis 😃
I appreciate the feedback! Developing this has been like putting the pieces of a puzzle together without a reference photo. I’m not a scientist, so it’s taken a while for me to find language to communicate what I have been discovering. It’s also been overwhelming because once you see reliability at work, you see it everywhere. I’m still learning. What stood out for you?
This is genuinely good stuff. You've put a LOT of thought into the concepts of identity, persistence and interaction, and all through a desire to know more about consciousness.
As a philosophy, you have some very good and serious gems:
"Coherence means a system maintains its identity over time through reliable operation within boundaries."
That is nearly verbatim but with a slight and literal twist on how I define identity, i say
" Identity is the is the boundary held by coherence through time"
Expressed as an equation, it could read something like
Your version: Ψ=Ψ_Identity(t)
My version: Ψ_Identity=Ψ(t)
If you wanted to keep folding, define terms more.
what is coherence?
What is time?
Why do we all experience time differently?
How do we.reconcile reality with other Ψ_identity through meaningful interaction?
Overall though man, this is very aligned with things I am publishing. It seems internally coherent and I think that its alright to leave a little wonder in there until it unfolds its meaning for you.
So long as you persist in truth like this, I think you're on the right path.
Thanks man, appreciate the serious engagement. I think you’re onto something with the identity/boundary distinction.
One clarification: reliability isn’t mathematically derivable - it’s what makes math work. Same way logic can’t be derived from math because math depends on logic being reliable in the first place. I intentionally structured it so that people can discover the full implications through testing if that makes sense
Hi Eric, I finally finished reading this article. I find it very interesting. I'm wondering what your background is--philosophy? This kind of article seems like one you would submit to an academic journal. I am thinking about this part: "If the second law of thermodynamics holds true, there is no scientific solution for mortality. It is a fundamental boundary condition of embodied existence. But boundaries don’t only constrain—they enable. They create the space where real choice matters." How does the 2nd law of thermodynamics ensure death? I like the idea that boundaries enable. But I'm not sure "real choice" exists. There is always the problem I faced when giving advice in my book The Constant Dieter. Can the reader do this if they choose to? There is still a problem with the "choosing to." Can your readers simply choose an ethic of reliability? and do the other things you point to in your conclusion? I have more questions but this is enough for now.
I hear you loud and clear. I know what I intend, but doing it concisely in this format is tough.
My section on consciousness may help clarify where I’m coming from on panpsychism. More broadly, the article is a response to nihilism as an answer to meaninglessness.
I’ve included an extensive set of citations in the preprint that may help interested readers orient themselves, but my goal isn’t to use them to prove that I’m right. The document is an open invitation to test the framework — to see whether reality actually supports these claims or not.
Hey Caroline! I’m grateful you took time to carefully read my work. I’m not an academic at all, but systems science was the primary lens that helped me make sense of what I now call the principle of reliability.
I published it as a preprint in a format I hope will be helpful to academic readers and accessible to independent researchers like me.
Ultimately sharing it helped release the weight of what I’ve been sorting through for months.
Regarding your first question, I used the second law as a scientific metaphor for the process and reality of death.
None of us chooses to be born. But once we become aware that life is finite, that truth gives our existence immeasurable value.
Regarding your second question, I believe in “real choice”. But I admit that desires can feel almost impossible to overcome, especially when they are anchored in fear or unexamined trauma.
I’m not telling my readers to believe. I’m inviting them to test the framework and see what holds. Reliability can be chosen as an aspirational ethic, but it’s a journey, not a destination. What do you think? I look forward to learning from you.
I will think about it more and get back to you. The systems approach is interesting. I have taught the philosophy of time and time travel a few times, and entropy plays a big role in that topic. My main problem in teaching that course is I am not versed in Physics, but I delved into the Second Law and entropy for that course.
This may give you some insight into my approach to this project:
I have learned that much of scientific discourse quietly accepts a dualist cosmology that makes theories like panpsychism acceptable science. And while these are not methodologically required, many rest their arguments on foundations of determinism, materialism, progress, and nihilism as accurate cosmological accounts of reality.
From the outside looking in, it seems these implicit assumptions are rarely questioned, but frequently accepted as brute facts.
My approach assumes that everyone reasons from a cosmological belief about reality. I used the scientific method to stress test my own assumptions, and this blueprint is what came out of that struggle.
Based on what I can deduce, nihilism doesn’t align with my observation of an ordered intelligible universe (governed by deterministic laws) that creates space for probabilistic possibilities.
One of the hardest pills for me to swallow was accepting that I am not a spirit person living inside a physical body. This conclusion goes against theological beliefs I’ve held for a lifetime. But just because Plato and Augustine held those beliefs, it doesn’t mean they were correct.
I’m sharing that to say that I’ve had many sleepless nights wrestling with these ideas 🤦🏽♂️
Eric, who are you reading? Your first sentence brings David Chalmers to my mind, but I don't think a dualistic perspective is widely held in philosophy or science. I don't understand your use of the term nihilism in this context. My biggest problem is that I don't know where you're coming from in your investigation. Are you supporting panpsychism? You need to show your sources for your ideas. Otherwise they're just floating in intellectual space.
I couldn’t agree more. I find that the free will debate really circles around whether or not we can experience unlimited freedom without responsibility. The principle of reliability simply explains why causes have effects, and choices have consequences.
Kudos for attempting to ground meaning, agency, and ethics in structural features of reality without appealing to theology or metaphysics. The progression from physical reliability to emergent agency is clear and intuitively powerful, and the framing of consequences as structural rather than moral is a strength. "Reliability” however, appears to be doing too much cross-layer work—bridging physics, biology, institutions, and ethics without fully decomposing the differences between them. The argument would benefit from tighter definitions, clearer layer separation, and a more explicit account of how descriptive viability becomes normatively relevant without reintroducing an “ought” implicitly.
Thanks for taking the time to read the article and for your thoughtful feedback. While I positioned this as a reconciliation of free will, I'm not actually making a philosophical argument. Viewed through a systems science lens, the principle does bridge physics, biology, institutions, and ethics. My goal is to share the principle, and invite testing from interested academics in different domains.
My position is that all systems require reliable relationships to maintain viability, coherence, or resilience. Either that premise is true or it is false.
If there is a counter example you would like to explore together I'd be happy to continue the dialogue as time permits. I look forward to learning from you!
I wrote an article based on your dual framework…check it out if you're interested…
I’ll check it out! When I wrote the dual order framework I thought I had discovered something like a relational law along side of physics. What I know now is that reliability governs coherence in all intelligible systems. My focus is on relational reliability (LR) so I’m looking forward to reading your analysis 😃
This prenciple builds beautifully on your previous reasoning. So insightful!
I appreciate the feedback! Developing this has been like putting the pieces of a puzzle together without a reference photo. I’m not a scientist, so it’s taken a while for me to find language to communicate what I have been discovering. It’s also been overwhelming because once you see reliability at work, you see it everywhere. I’m still learning. What stood out for you?
Ah crucial distinction. Ill have a think on that.
I could be wrong. I look forward to hearing what you discover
We are all most assuredly wrong. Its just asking how deeply we want to misunderstand the universe.
You aren't doing anything wrong. At all. Just don't quit and feed that insatiable need for truth.
This is genuinely good stuff. You've put a LOT of thought into the concepts of identity, persistence and interaction, and all through a desire to know more about consciousness.
As a philosophy, you have some very good and serious gems:
"Coherence means a system maintains its identity over time through reliable operation within boundaries."
That is nearly verbatim but with a slight and literal twist on how I define identity, i say
" Identity is the is the boundary held by coherence through time"
Expressed as an equation, it could read something like
Your version: Ψ=Ψ_Identity(t)
My version: Ψ_Identity=Ψ(t)
If you wanted to keep folding, define terms more.
what is coherence?
What is time?
Why do we all experience time differently?
How do we.reconcile reality with other Ψ_identity through meaningful interaction?
Overall though man, this is very aligned with things I am publishing. It seems internally coherent and I think that its alright to leave a little wonder in there until it unfolds its meaning for you.
So long as you persist in truth like this, I think you're on the right path.
Thanks man, appreciate the serious engagement. I think you’re onto something with the identity/boundary distinction.
One clarification: reliability isn’t mathematically derivable - it’s what makes math work. Same way logic can’t be derived from math because math depends on logic being reliable in the first place. I intentionally structured it so that people can discover the full implications through testing if that makes sense
Hi Eric, I finally finished reading this article. I find it very interesting. I'm wondering what your background is--philosophy? This kind of article seems like one you would submit to an academic journal. I am thinking about this part: "If the second law of thermodynamics holds true, there is no scientific solution for mortality. It is a fundamental boundary condition of embodied existence. But boundaries don’t only constrain—they enable. They create the space where real choice matters." How does the 2nd law of thermodynamics ensure death? I like the idea that boundaries enable. But I'm not sure "real choice" exists. There is always the problem I faced when giving advice in my book The Constant Dieter. Can the reader do this if they choose to? There is still a problem with the "choosing to." Can your readers simply choose an ethic of reliability? and do the other things you point to in your conclusion? I have more questions but this is enough for now.
I hear you loud and clear. I know what I intend, but doing it concisely in this format is tough.
My section on consciousness may help clarify where I’m coming from on panpsychism. More broadly, the article is a response to nihilism as an answer to meaninglessness.
I’ve included an extensive set of citations in the preprint that may help interested readers orient themselves, but my goal isn’t to use them to prove that I’m right. The document is an open invitation to test the framework — to see whether reality actually supports these claims or not.
Hey Caroline! I’m grateful you took time to carefully read my work. I’m not an academic at all, but systems science was the primary lens that helped me make sense of what I now call the principle of reliability.
I published it as a preprint in a format I hope will be helpful to academic readers and accessible to independent researchers like me.
Ultimately sharing it helped release the weight of what I’ve been sorting through for months.
Regarding your first question, I used the second law as a scientific metaphor for the process and reality of death.
None of us chooses to be born. But once we become aware that life is finite, that truth gives our existence immeasurable value.
Regarding your second question, I believe in “real choice”. But I admit that desires can feel almost impossible to overcome, especially when they are anchored in fear or unexamined trauma.
I’m not telling my readers to believe. I’m inviting them to test the framework and see what holds. Reliability can be chosen as an aspirational ethic, but it’s a journey, not a destination. What do you think? I look forward to learning from you.
I will think about it more and get back to you. The systems approach is interesting. I have taught the philosophy of time and time travel a few times, and entropy plays a big role in that topic. My main problem in teaching that course is I am not versed in Physics, but I delved into the Second Law and entropy for that course.
This may give you some insight into my approach to this project:
I have learned that much of scientific discourse quietly accepts a dualist cosmology that makes theories like panpsychism acceptable science. And while these are not methodologically required, many rest their arguments on foundations of determinism, materialism, progress, and nihilism as accurate cosmological accounts of reality.
From the outside looking in, it seems these implicit assumptions are rarely questioned, but frequently accepted as brute facts.
My approach assumes that everyone reasons from a cosmological belief about reality. I used the scientific method to stress test my own assumptions, and this blueprint is what came out of that struggle.
Based on what I can deduce, nihilism doesn’t align with my observation of an ordered intelligible universe (governed by deterministic laws) that creates space for probabilistic possibilities.
One of the hardest pills for me to swallow was accepting that I am not a spirit person living inside a physical body. This conclusion goes against theological beliefs I’ve held for a lifetime. But just because Plato and Augustine held those beliefs, it doesn’t mean they were correct.
I’m sharing that to say that I’ve had many sleepless nights wrestling with these ideas 🤦🏽♂️
Eric, who are you reading? Your first sentence brings David Chalmers to my mind, but I don't think a dualistic perspective is widely held in philosophy or science. I don't understand your use of the term nihilism in this context. My biggest problem is that I don't know where you're coming from in your investigation. Are you supporting panpsychism? You need to show your sources for your ideas. Otherwise they're just floating in intellectual space.
I couldn’t agree more. I find that the free will debate really circles around whether or not we can experience unlimited freedom without responsibility. The principle of reliability simply explains why causes have effects, and choices have consequences.