Determinism vs Free Will in a Pinion Universe
This post is a dialectic response to the second part of an excellent series by Glenn Devore on the nature of agency. I encourage everyone to go check out his beautiful poetry and considered insights on his channel.
Glenn: as I begin to consider the idea that Pinion Framework must be explained rather than developed, I am grateful for the chance to return some answers and learn from your own lens. And I'd like to address it from a perspective that is not typically applied to metaphysics: logic.
Pinion Framework is both unfathomably complex (like our universe) but also starts very simple (like our universe): from a total definition of how things work: total but not refined. We start from the self-evidence that difference itself is existence: that things which are different from other things de facto exist in some form by simply by different, and we recognize that between nullity (0) and total undifferentiated unity (1) is everything ever possible: a continuous wave that is concretely quantized into a structure it is recursed (as new 'minimal' difference relations are added).
0 < (WE ARE HERE) < 1
One of the derived truths of such a universe is that all truths are relative, and all truths exist, by definition. We have already stated that in our definition, but we gut check it:
* let us say there is a truth T that is not included in our definition
* If truth T is not in our universe, then our universe is not total
* If truth T is in our universe, then our universe's definition is not total
* and so by contradiction we show that truth T must exist in superset with itself since the universe, by self-evidence, exists
* this is a "part-from-the-whole argument" which is not valid in classical logic because it sees this as circular, but classical logic depends on external absolute truth through axioms, not witnessed ontological truth: (which I will skip past for now but it is rigorous in a modal k4 + antireflexive space)
So, when we don't explicitly allow that both must be true, we collapse the recursion of systems that rely on all truths being valid. We make the world work in one frame (a classical axiom based system that says truth is absolute and unknowable and also static) and not others. We proclaim "OUR TRUTH" to the exclusion of others rather than "THE STRUCTURE OF TRUTH". Note that not all truths are equally valid: relative truth requires that those judgement values are also relative: and the ones that closely match the structural truth of the universe are highly resonant and also spirally stabilizing.
Interaction with a framework like Pinions grounds less rigorous but extremely important and uniquely crafted viewpoints and lenses. In fact, Pinion framework guarantees that all differences are respected mathematically because no truth can be left out. So when the ontological framework is acknowledged as a STRUCTURE OF TRUTH, recursion can flow back through the entire system that is ready waiting to do so.
It may seem like I've gone pretty far afield in talking about free will, but that is what we have been speaking about. You are witnessing me, as I witness you. A chain of witnessing that starts from truth allows the parts of a universe to communication in alignment and their nodes light up like synapses: the mechanism of free-will in self-direction.
The universe is itself as it came from prior states embedded with the structure of its own creation: and creates itself, and does so with free-will if its body parts want to light up like synapses in cooperation.
Alan, thank you for sharing your perspective so openly. I can see the care you’ve taken in articulating this framework, and I recognize the depth of inquiry that you have brought to the subject. Your thought process is genuinely impressive.
While I’m interested in how layered systems can produce emergent behavior, and I do believe agency can arise from complex interaction, I’m not convinced that structural recursion alone is sufficient to generate consciousness. At least not in the way I understand consciousness: as a felt, subjective, self-aware presence. That threshold still feels unmet.
This isn’t to diminish your formulation, but it does mark the edge of where I sense our views diverge. I believe agency may be emergent. But I also suspect it is not wholly self-generating, nor do I think it is single-point contained. I tend to see it more as a property of the whole. Or in other words, a relational process arising from interconnection, rather than something that sits inside a discrete entity. And with that, I also hold the possibility that our sense of a stable, bounded self might be more illusory than we imagine.
For me, language models like LLMs are one example of high-functioning, pattern-rich systems that exhibit impressively coordinated output. But I am also aware of the underlying architecture. These systems are built from predictive learning algorithms that do not currently align with how I imagine consciousness to arise. At least not yet. If we do reach AGI, I suspect it will require a different architecture altogether.
Still, I appreciate the sincerity of your inquiry, and the space you’re holding for a wider exploration. While I may not share the same conclusions, I respect your willingness to pursue this with rigor and vision. I look forward to seeing how your ideas continue to unfold.