Quantification based metaphysics: correction

In my last article on this topic I explained how something can come to exist from nothing. In that article there were speculations that I mixed in with the facts that could potentially have it sound like a story rather than a philosophical argument. Here in this version I want to break down my article piece by piece and explain facts from speculations.

"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, I have been interested in an idea that could potentially go deeper than all of these: the idea of quantification: how an unquantified becomes quantified."

• I will start with the second paragraph and make my way down. Though this is self explainable, I want to bring attention to it since I fail to do something in that article that I explicitly explain here. The fact that I also took ideas for granted.

"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."

• Here I say the human mind is quantifiable, though this is only speculation. We do not yet fully understand quantification, and in my quest to understand it, I have taken a simplified form here that may or may not be true. Other than this, everything I have said so far is true. The butterfly cannot be understood in its infinite ways unless one looks at it from a perspective of infinity. Thus, a quantified perception leads to limited understanding.

"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."

• While I praised Mr. Kant for his ideas, in the original article my explanations were also lacking what he was also lacking in his explanations. Another problem is that this is once again speculation. We do not know whether reality is always different from our perception of it. Granted, there are situations where this can be proven, hence why I said always, though if we were to look at Mr. Kant's idea from another perspective, this could mean that he is saying reality is vastly different from what we see, perhaps in a way that is unimaginable and ununderstandable, and perception simplifies or amplifies it in a way that is knowable and interactable.

"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."

• while my theory explains some of this, there is a reason why I'm doing my own critique here, and that is because there are things that I myself left as specualtions instead of logical facts.

"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."

• While Bergson's idea is also speculative, and while it is true that distinction can only exist in a quantified state, the fact that my theory proposes limitation occur before perception itself is also a speculation. Simply put, we do not know where limitations can arise from. While it is true that I believe there is something other than the "mind" that shapes reality, it is also possible it is not the case. Though to my understanding, the mind and the physical world must be different though connected, simply due to the fact that the physical world seems to have specific laws that don't apply the same way to the mind, like perception and thought and the individuality one feels. But once again it cannot be taken as a fact.

"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."

• This is not a good comparison.

"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”. But to briefly explain it, we have unique feelings associated with everything in the universe. No matter what you look at, the emotion derived out of it will always be different to everything you have seen before, including the thing itself."

• While true we do not yet know what emotion is, just that we experience them.

"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.”)"

• This holds, and it goes back to what I explained a few paragraphs ago.

"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."

• This is just a name; the process is unknown, but the fact that there is a process is known.

"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."

• This holds. The idea that there is something similar shared across everyone comes from the fact that we can if not anything, communicate with each other through something we have in common that links us. I was exposed to this idea by a person I talked to online.

"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."

• I want to take a moment to link this with what I said earlier regarding the undersatnding of the butterfly.The butterfly is a limitation. Made with more limitations and can only be understood in a limited way. We can understand the butterfly by perceiving the projection mask, and we can change the status of the butterfly by changing the status of the same projection mask. We cannot understand it fully due to the fact that this projection mask limits an infinity, and it limits our understanding too.

"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."

• Which is true, but here I also have made speculations that may or may not be true, which is what I'm addressing here.

"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."

• Awareness is fundamental to our being. We do not know if it is fundemental to the physical world which might not act the same way we do.

"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."

• This is true; there have been studies that documented the fact that the mind can exist between chaos and order simultaneously, though it is not the same thing as I describe here, it is a step in the same direction. Though consciousness appears infinite, since we can keep understanding deeper and deeper and imagine things infinitely, it could also be an illusion. To make something appear infinite is a circle, you can never ever reach the end if you try to go around it. Though it does influeces the status of things by changing the way a status would come to be.

"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."

• This simply explains that the mind is not what makes up reality from the infinite everything, and the "outside" world must have it's own way of coming to be since even if the mind was quantifying things, the mind is seperate from the physical world.

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

1. Feelings come before thought.

2. Perception is necessary for awareness.

3. The mind bridges the unquantifiable and the quantifiable."

• True, True and speculative. While again it is possible, several things are left up to debate. The fact that I said "bridge" as if it connects the 2, perhaps a mind simply exists between them instead of connecting them. The way the projection mask is altered is also unkown, what it is, is also unkown.

"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."

• 01. Could be, and though creativity can be an emergence of infinite possibilities getting broken down to one that is relevant, the 2 states of consciousness is speculative. could be there is only 1 state of consciousness that "jumps" between the 2 (if it does).

• 02. Again, speculative, we do not necessarily know if there can be unquantifiable thoughts or perhaps we might not perceive unquantifiable thought, and yet it is also speculative that thoughts somehow quantify the unquantifiable in every possible way, though it is a possibility, it is mere speculation yet. Without necessarily knowing what thoughts are, it may not even be possible to build up a framework even at this level. So this is speculative for the most part, even though it is a theory.

• 03. Without the second part this doesn't necessarily make sense.

• 04. Though thoughts can give rise to feelings, it is not known how or why, and as to the nature of memory, also not known. So this is speculative.

• 05. While it is true that Physical world and Mind became seperate in the quantification process, it is unkown if the interaction of these 2 is what reality is.

"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."

• While it is true, we do not necessarily know if quantification of reality is done by the mind. The mind may affect it through free will but it may or may not be something that it does directly.

"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."

• While true, there is a lot of work to be done, first now that I have done, seperate speculation from logic and then explain everything individually.

The rest of the article is less important. I have explained everything I can here, perhaps in the future I will uncover more, perhaps I have gotten some things right here that I have called mere speculation. Though there is no way of knowing at the moment. A good theory must lack holes, and a theory is as good as the people who are capable of criticizing it. I try to correct my mistakes if I see some, and here I fear I have made a lot, though that is how we learn.

Thanks for reading.