Appendix

Logos, in What Way?

2025/04/02
Contents

Introduction: Foundations of Meaning

There are different branches of the foundation for how I process meaning, because some of the claims may not be true. To account for this uncertainty, I have expanded them into alternatives, assigned a probability to each, and calculated what the overall system would “say.”

The main branch aligns with an intuitive and, in my opinion, elegant grounding: everything exists.

Side Note: Challenges with the “Everything Exists” Hypothesis

This hypothesis has some problems. For example, it is in tension with the idea that anything outside of the present moment’s direct experience does not exist. In other words, perhaps all of reality is contained within direct present experience and is explained fully and inherently within it. We might be somewhat tricked by the feeling that more hypothetical content in reality gives us a better chance at understanding how it could be justified to exist in a coherent way.

The Main Grounding: Including Everything in Reality

Despite these challenges, the best grounding for reality is to include everything. This is essentially Max Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, which immediately struck me as a superior foundation for reality when I first encountered it. It is also described by Stephen Wolfram—at least conceptually (I’m not sure if he believes reality is likely grounded by it)—in his idea of finding our laws of physics within a sequence of all possible computer programs.

This basis for reality lends itself well to analysis because it is highly structure-oriented. Rather than relying on a difficult line of logical relations between half-defined and potentially very complicated things, it simply posits that all linguistically expressible structures exist. These structures are likely ordered by something like computational complexity, from simple to complex in terms of frequency.

We can, right now, create artificial multiverses that adhere to this idea. This represents leaps and bounds forward in the possibility of analyzing the characteristics of reality as a whole.

Structural Descriptions of Ourselves

We know ourselves to be described quite well in structural terms. Through linguistic rules, we can create systems that copy themselves and systems that think (like AI algorithms). Therefore, I consider it likely that reality can be further analyzed through the lens of substructure embodiment.

Substructure Embodiment: Experiencing Reality in Parts

Substructure embodiment is the mechanism by which reality as a whole can be experienced in parts by a perceiver. It suggests that within the universe, there are beings which function primarily as complex structures that can be moved around and adapt to external conditions while maintaining their core functions and sense of self. These beings aren’t separate in a literal way, but that separation is its own difficult philosophical issue.

If we accept this axiom—that within the overall reality structure, there are multiple parts (substructures) that can be experienced as subjectivities—then we gain more ground for analysis. We can assign probabilities to each kind of subjective experience and, therefore, determine the overall expected character of subjective being.

Expected Frequencies of Different Kinds of Being

What, then, is to be expected for the frequencies of different kinds of being?

Most concretely, it means that self-replicating systems are likely very well represented. However, this raises issues regarding the “language” the universe uses to remember and structure itself. It could be that simple and efficient self-replicating systems are the most common type of subjectivities. Alternatively, refined self-replicators that have already existed may not be adequate for understanding expected subjective experience because they are only represented once in reality, as the language does not accommodate true repetition.

To clarify, both structures are the same in content, but depending on the language in which the structure is expressed, the outcome for experience may differ.

Example Fabrics of Language

In some sense, this questions whether the universe is “intelligent” about its own structure. Language ordinarily involves compression. It seems reasonable to assume either a complete lack of compression or a complete inclusion of it—and especially to examine the similarities between these cases.

The Compressed (Intelligent) Case

In the intelligent, or compressed case, I believe true life occurs. Here, nothing is what it seems because it is negated by what has been. If it had ever been before, it wouldn’t be—except once—and there are endless things to choose from. What crazy odds would have to occur for you to be right about where you are? Nonetheless, abstracted qualities of experience might have consistent representation, such as:

The Uncompressed Case

In the uncompressed case, much more can be learned. We are palpably close to simulating it on a computer. Patterns in the results of patterns being applied to themselves (as in the “everything exists” idea or Wolfram’s sequence of programs) feel more natural for us to understand—at least right now. This is because we have some grasp of artificial intelligence and the relationship between algorithmic steps and the information gained. We also understand the possibilities of different rules and how structures would replicate in those contexts.

Inefficiencies lead to lowered representation and thus decrease the likelihood of certain narratives in subjective experience.