Quantification based Metaphysics

(This is a continuation of my post "Subjective Reality", though reading it is not required)

Metaphysics has fascinated me ever since I was first exposed to it. The philosophical struggle to explain reality and mind is an ongoing and deeply interesting topic—one that many of us, as humans, are naturally drawn to. This is simply because we want to understand who we are and what any of this means.

Though there have been many metaphysical ideas over the years, I have found them lacking in basic underlying detail. Ideas that should be rigorously questioned are often taken for granted, with entire theories built upon them. The two most fundamental ideas that are typically assumed without proper scrutiny are mind and matter. All theories about consciousness and reality seem to take these as givens—whether the theory is idealism, physicalism, mind-body dualism, etc. However, in my thinking I came across an idea that could potentially go deeper than all of these: the idea of quantification: the process of nothing and everything randomly becoming something, and only that something and not some other thing.

To explain this, I will start with something we are all familiar with: the idea of understanding. When one understands anything, one only ever grasps a part of it—not the whole. For example, take a butterfly. When one looks at it, they may see its patterns, colors, hear the sound it makes, and perhaps even feel the softness of its wings. But no one can fully comprehend a butterfly. We may see its colors, but there are other wavelengths of light reflecting off it that we cannot perceive. We may see its patterns, but for every pattern we detect, there are thousands of microscopic patterns we do not. Even if we somehow could see and hear everything about a butterfly, deeper questions remain—such as: Is the butterfly conscious?

Thus, the act of understanding is inherently limited. This limitation is exactly what I aim to explore using what I call Quantification Theory—the idea that reality, as we experience it, is constrained, and that these constraints shape the theories we derive about it.

The concepts of nothing and everything are the only ideas we can reasonably claim to be true, in the sense that infinity is the only thing we can consistently posit as fundamental. Though the states of nothingness and everythingness could be indistinguishable in some abstract way, one thing we can say about them is that they must be unquantifiable. That is, a quantifiable thing (like a human mind or a scientific model) cannot fully comprehend or represent them. Try to imagine something that cannot make sense whatsoever—and even this act fails, because once imagined, it becomes something.

Immanuel Kant, the famous philosopher, proposed the distinction between noumenon and phenomenon: the noumenon being what reality “really” is in itself, and phenomena being how reality appears to us through the filters of the mind. While this idea captures an important truth, the limitation of Kant’s theory is that it assumes that objects already exist independently, prior to perception. Perception may alter how things appear, but it does not account for how those things came to be in the first place.

The idea I explore here addresses a different but related question — not just how perception differs from reality, but how distinctions themselves arise. Kant's theory assumes that there are already things to be perceived, and that the mind merely shapes our experience of them. My concept, by contrast, asks why there must be “things” at all, and how anything becomes distinct from everything else. It seeks to explain the emergence of form, separation, and individuality — including the very process of perception — from an underlying undifferentiated reality.

Similarly, Henri Bergson’s idea of Being versus Becoming describes reality as divided into two layers: the world we interact with is composed of things we continuously understand or interpret, emerging from an underlying reality that is constantly changing. While this bears some resemblance to the idea I’m presenting, there is an important distinction concerning the nature and origin of limits.

Bergson suggests that everything is in a state of flux, and that the brain captures static snapshots from this ongoing flow in order to make sense of it. In contrast, my theory proposes that limitation itself occurs before perception — that perception is not the only source of limitation.. While the idea of a changing, dynamic reality fits within my model, I depart from Bergson in that I treat the underlying reality not as a flowing process, but as something fundamentally unquantifiable and beyond comprehension. The notion of flux does not apply at this deepest level, because even the concept of change assumes distinction — and distinction, in this model, arises only after quantification.

The unquantifiable underlying state is where everything that exists exists—all at once, all together, and not at all. Though I can attempt to describe it this way, such language falls far short. It is like comparing an ocean to a puddle.

Once we consider infinity, we must also address the non-infinite—that is, the limitedness of our reality. We can see these limits everywhere: in color, sound, shape, etc. This suggests that while a boundless, limitless reality may be possible in theory, the reality we experience is somehow distinct from that infinite totality. Everything in the world appears to be unique from everything else, and I’ve discussed how this uniqueness relates to emotion in my post “Love, Death, and Sadness.”

So, how does this uniqueness emerge from the infinite potential of everything? This is where the idea of quantification enters. Quantification is the process through which the infinite becomes something. Though the mechanism of this process is not obvious, we can begin to approach it through contemplation of the self as well as philosophical logic.

The apparent separation between physical reality and the mind seems to hold, regardless of the metaphysical lens we use. There is always an inside and an outside. Even if they are ultimately the same in a deep sense, there seems to be a gap between awareness and the physical world. If the unquantifiable mind and the unquantifiable physical world are indeed the same, then it is quantification that gives rise to the distinction between them. (I explored how mind differs from thought in my post “Unquantifiable Thought.”)

So, based on this idea of separation—and the assumption that the underlying substance is one and the same—we can build a model of reality through logical reflection and self-contemplation. I call this model Quantification-Based Metaphysics.

In my post “Subjective Reality,” I discussed how each experience can differ from every other. We affect reality by interacting not with "things" directly, but by influencing their quantification. Some aspects of reality, however, appear to be shared among all beings within it. This gives rise to a set of common limits, separating mind and physical reality, since this physical reality is these sets of common laws that we all see. Though they are neither physical nor mental they may appear as either one depending on the context.

So, we interact with the Quantification of reality. Yet if we assume that the physical world exists independently of us, then it must also affect this quantification process—explaining why we experience some things the same way everyone does.

But why does any interaction affect the quantification and not the thing itself? Because even if we assume that it affects the “thing,” that still involves changing how it is presented to us—changing the way we perceive and understand it. Take a ball, for example. If someone moves it from position 1 to position 2, what has changed is not just the ball, but the understanding of its position. The ball’s properties have changed in relation to us, meaning the quantification of those properties has changed. And one has affected the quantification of those properties to change the ball’s position.

To further illustrate this idea, consider an analogy from matrix multiplication, where quantification acts like a projection mask. Imagine an infinite-dimensional reality — an unstructured totality — being transformed into a finite, structured form through this mask. Just as a matrix can project a high-dimensional object into a lower-dimensional space, quantification reduces the infinite into a perceivable, limited reality. In this framework, we cannot interact with the resulting finite set directly, but we can influence the projection process. Thus, interaction — whether through perception, action, or thought — modifies the projection mask, altering how the infinite is expressed as finite experience.

This brings us to a fundamental question: How can we build upon this idea of quantification to explain reality? As it stands, the idea helps explain why things become things, but not how or what causes it. While I do not yet have a complete answer, we can begin to develop a framework for what reality could look like, grounded in this central notion of quantification.

Combining everything I’ve explored so far in this blog, I’ve come to the conclusion that conscious awareness is fundamental. No matter what else is happening — thinking, feeling, acting — we are always aware of it. In fact, we are even aware of our own awareness. This suggests that awareness must occupy the highest level in the hierarchy of consciousness.

However, consciousness itself appears to be a blend of the infinite and the finite. It exists at the intersection between the unquantifiable and the quantifiable. It influences the projection masks through which the infinite is expressed as limited experience and seems to occupy a realm that lies between these two extremes, though it primarily operates within the quantifiable.

Since quantification also sits between the unquantifiable and the quantifiable, it might be tempting to conclude that consciousness and quantification are the same thing. However, I believe this is not the case. Even if the mind plays a role in quantification on the “inside,” there still appears to be an “outside” that lacks what we would call a mind. Therefore, calling this external aspect “mind” would oversimplify the situation. Moreover, to claim that quantification is the mind, one would first need to define what “mind” even means. While it’s possible that quantification is an aspect of the mind, I prefer not to equate the two for the reasons mentioned above.

Now, taking a step back, we can integrate several key insights:

• Feelings come before thought.

• Perception is necessary for awareness.

• The mind bridges the unquantifiable and the quantifiable.

• 
  

Bringing these together, I propose the following framework for conscious experience:

1. Two States of Conscious Processes: There are two states in which conscious processes occur — one within the unquantified and one within the quantified. While the unquantified remains mostly inaccessible, we can feel its influence through creativity, intuition, and originality. Consciousness, as a whole, sits between these two states.

2. Thought as Dual Process: Thought is the process of forming defined ideas. It happens in both the quantified and unquantified states. In the quantified state, thoughts are bound by limits and definitions. In the unquantified state, however, everything is defined in every possible way, like an infinite matrix where every element represents a different description or potential. These unquantified thoughts are then perceived by a kind of pure, unquantifiable awareness and are “stored” in some non-physical repository though the nature of this repository or where it is, is unclear, there are many questions that needs answering even with this framework but my goal is to try and bring us closer to that understanding via understanding the process of how it can work.

3. Projection and Quantification: This stored matrix undergoes a kind of projection — a quantification process — which gives rise to limited, specific thoughts in the quantified conscious state. Simultaneously, awareness itself becomes constrained, perceiving only limited aspects of the whole.

4. Feelings Arise and Feedback Begins: These quantified thoughts then generate feelings, which are themselves perceived by consciousness and stored again, this time however in the brain, an object with limits. This storage of emotional impressions feeds back into the quantification process, further influencing how future experience is shaped and interpreted.

5. The Physical Interface: On the physical side of reality, the external, quantifiable world also shapes the mind’s quantification process. This reciprocal relationship between inner and outer quantification gives rise to what we call “reality.” A being’s existence within this shared reality may be more or less independent, depending on the context. Ultimately, existence is a matter of both perceiving and interacting — and it may be that perception and interaction are fundamentally the same.

To further explain this, I have made a visual map that you can use as a visual aid and it is linked here. 

There are other concepts that this model can help illuminate — one of the most significant being free will. Within this framework, free will can be understood as arising from the mind that exists between the two states: the unquantified and the quantified. While everything else in reality may operate in an algorithmic fashion — with each part influencing the other in a deterministic loop — it is free will that breaks this pattern. It is the source of non-algorithmic, original behavior.

Free will influences everything, including how reality is quantified. With it comes the ability to form new and unique ways of seeing the world. Put simply, on a subconscious level, free will is the capacity to choose what we retain in our minds and what we let go of. This act of selection is where originality emerges — it demonstrates the reach of the will and how creativity and uniqueness manifest within the brain.

However, there is an important caveat: while free will plays a role in shaping quantification, it does not govern every aspect of it. The will can only choose from among the options that are available — options that arise from the "physical world" aspect of reality, which we do not fully control. In other words, although consciousness can influence how the infinite is quantified, it does so within a framework that includes constraints beyond its immediate command. These constraints limit the field of possible choices, meaning that quantification is shaped both by free will and by external, shared structures of reality.

So, as I’ve demonstrated throughout this blog, it’s possible to construct a model of reality using only philosophical reasoning, without needing to commit to any single interpretation of the physical or the mental. This model is deliberately flexible — it can operate across a wide range of metaphysical frameworks.

Remove the idea of a physical world, and the model leans toward idealism, where everything is ultimately mental or experiential. Remove the mind, and everything collapses into physicalism, where only the material exists. Take away free will, and you're left with a system resembling deterministic AI, driven by input-output algorithms. Strip away awareness and emotion, and what remains is a structure nearly indistinguishable from artificial intelligence as we know it.

True AI lives entirely on the quantified end of the spectrum—it processes only what has already been defined and never reaches toward the unquantifiable infinite. A system that merely “resembles” AI but truly thinks, would need something extra: the capacity for thought’s qualia. In such a being, algorithmic operations would not just produce outputs but would be experienced as thought. Human thinking—even stripped of other forms of awareness—operates on a different “layer” than mere computation, because it can reflect on itself and evolve beyond its initial parameters: a capability today’s AI lacks.

In short, consciousness might persist in a pure thought-form. That experience of thought alone would set it apart from current AI, which remains a closed loop of computation with no bridge into the unquantifiable.

This model set out to move beyond the old dualisms—mind vs. matter, noumenon vs. phenomenon, being vs. becoming—by positing quantification as the generative bridge between the infinite and the finite. In this framework, consciousness occupies the very seam of that bridge, capable of shaping reality itself through its choices.

This model doesn’t just re-label existing positions; it offers a flexible scaffolding that can lean toward idealism, physicalism, or even spark a new understanding of artificial and human intelligence—simply by turning assumptions on or off.

Yet many questions remain: How is our unquantified potential stored? What causes this "projction mask" or "Quantification"? Can we ever glimpse the “infinite” directly? And might we one day build machines that genuinely bridge that gap? These open problems point the way to an exciting research program—one that blends metaphysics, cognitive science, ethics, and technology.

If we can learn to navigate and even modify our own projection masks, we may discover not only what reality is, but what we can make it become.

PS: I make these posts to put my ideas out there and recieve feedback to try and improve them, I may change some specific aspects of the theory depending on feedback I recieve. However the main idea of Unquantifiable, Quantifiable, Quantification will remain untouched.