From Substance to Procedure

A Comparative Critique of Non-Generative and Generative Monisms

Bruno, Spinoza, and Finn’s Procedural Reconstruction of the One

1. Introduction: The Question of How the One Becomes Many

Western monism traditionally presents the world as an expression of a single principle—whether named matter (Bruno), substance (Spinoza), Being, Brahman, or Nature.
But the decisive philosophical question is not whether reality is “one”; the deeper question is:

By what procedure does the One generate the Many?

A monism can be non-generative if it merely declares unity and attributes multiplicity to some metaphysical emanation or necessity.
A monism is generative when it specifies the mechanisms, units, and rules by which determinate realities come to be.

Giordano Bruno and Baruch Spinoza are exemplary cases of non-generative monists: brilliant, bold, but structurally unable to explain how any concrete emergent—from a potato to a photon—arises from their universal principles.

Finn’s Procedure Monism, by contrast, is generative: it treats reality as a quantised sequence of discrete operations (procedures, collisions, interactions) that constitute mass, identity, and form.

This essay presents a systematic comparison.

2. Bruno’s Monism: Infinite Matter Without a Mechanism

2.1 The Inheritance: Matter, Form, and World-Soul

Bruno inherits a Renaissance fusion of:

· Aristotelian hylomorphism (matter + form),

· Neoplatonic emanation (One → Nous → Soul → world),

· Stoic pneuma (active principle),

· Hermetic infinite nature.

His central move is to collapse these into a single claim:

Matter is infinite and divine; all forms are its expressions.

But when examined structurally, this is not a generative claim. It says:

· The substrate is infinite.

· The list of possible forms is infinite.

· The expression of forms occurs because matter is “capable” of all form.

· Movement is explained by a “World-Soul” pervading matter.

This is not an ontology of production but a litany of capacities.

2.2 Infinite Capacity as a Philosophical Dead End

Bruno repeatedly says:

· matter is one,

· matter is infinite,

· matter is the substratum,

· matter is capable of all forms.

Each of these is non-definitional:

· “one” is not an essence but a quantity,

· “infinite” is the negation of boundary,

· “substratum” is a relational placeholder,

· “capable of all forms” is a functional slogan, not a procedure.

None tell us how form is generated.

2.3 Example: The Potato Test

Bruno can say that the potato is a manifestation of infinite matter via the World-Soul, but he cannot, even in principle, explain:

· why it weighs 180g and not 80g,

· how the structure is maintained,

· where its stability comes from,

· how its identity persists across time.

“World-Soul” does not generate; it excuses generation.

2.4 Non-Generativity in Summary

Bruno’s monism provides:

· categories but not units,

· capacities but not operations,

· form but not formation,

· infinity but not procedure.

He enlarges the One but offers no mechanism by which the One becomes Many.

3. Spinoza’s Monism: Geometrical Necessity Without Construction

3.1 Substance as a Negative Definition

Spinoza’s foundational assertion:

Substance is that which is in itself and is conceived through itself.

This is a tautological and apophatic definition: it defines substance only by what it is not.

It does not specify:

· any internal structure,

· any generative rule,

· any operational identity.

It is the metaphysical equivalent of defining an engine as:

“that which runs by itself.”

3.2 Attributes and Modes: A Linguistic Superstructure

Spinoza’s architecture:

· one substance (God or Nature),

· infinite attributes,

· modes that follow from the attributes.

This framework describes a logical hierarchy, not a generative apparatus.
It says that things exist because they “follow” from substance, but not how they follow.

3.3 Determinism ≠ Procedure

Spinoza’s system is deterministic:

Every particular mode exists by the necessity of God’s nature.

But determinism only states that events could not be otherwise; it does not show:

· how modes form,

· what produces extension,

· how bodies acquire density, cohesion, identity.

The theory gives no constructive sequence.

A potato is “a mode of extension,” but the route from substance → extension → potato is never specified.

3.4 The Same Potato Test

Ask Spinoza:

Why is this potato a stable, cohesive, finite mode?

The reply is always:

· Because it expresses God under the attribute of extension.

· Because it follows from the infinite chain of causes.

This explains nothing about how the potato emerges or persists.

3.5 Non-Generativity in Summary

Spinoza offers:

· necessity, not construction,

· logic, not procedure,

· taxonomy, not generation,

· a vocabulary of monism, not an engine.

His monism tells you what must be the case “in the most general terms” but never how anything actually happens.

4. The Shared Failure: Monism Without Mechanism

Bruno and Spinoza share a deep structural defect:

They posit an ultimate unity with no generative machinery.

Common symptoms:

1. Undefined primitives

o Bruno’s “matter”

o Spinoza’s “substance”
act as tautological anchors.

2. No minimal units
Neither identifies the smallest actionable element of reality.

3. No procedural dynamics
Motion, formation, persistence are explained by appeal to
“World-Soul” (Bruno) or “necessity” (Spinoza).

4. No account of identity or mass
They cannot explain why anything weighs what it weighs
or persists as what it is.

5. No reconstructive capacity
Their systems, even in theory, cannot build a world.

They describe the ceiling (“all is one”) but never lay down the floor (“here is how the one becomes many”).

Their monisms are static, non-operational, and non-generative.

5. Finn’s Procedure Monism: A Generative Reconstruction of the One

Procedure Monism begins from a radically different orientation:

Reality is not given; it is generated.
Identity is not assumed; it is produced.
The One is not a substance; it is a procedure.

5.1 The Minimal Unit: Quantised Action

Finn’s monism identifies the minimal unit of reality as:

a discrete quantum of directed action.

This replaces:

· Bruno’s infinite matter

· Spinoza’s undefined substance

with a finite event possessing:

· magnitude,

· direction,

· temporal locality.

5.2 Generativity Through Collision/Contact

The world arises from:

collisions between discrete units of action at c,
producing realness as an observer-detectable effect.

This yields:

· mass = confined action (stabilised collision cycles)

· energy = unconfined action (directed propagation)

· identity = stable patterns of bounded interactions

· emergents = higher-order organisations of procedural sequences

Bruno and Spinoza have no analogues for this.

5.3 Iteration as Ontology

In Procedure Monism:

· existence is discrete,

· time is the seriality of events,

· identity is the pattern of bounded recurrences,

· form is generated by iteration,

· structure is emergent from algorithmic accumulation.

Bruno and Spinoza treat time and change as secondary distortions of eternity;
Finn treats time and change as the engine of being.

5.4 Realness as Output, Not Premise

Finn’s system does not assume realness.

Realness is generated:

· from collisions,

· from differential constraints,

· from procedural stabilisation.

Bruno assumes matter is always real.
Spinoza assumes substance is necessarily real.
Finn shows how realness is produced.

5.5 The Potato Test (Finally Answered)

Under Procedure Monism, the potato is:

· a stabilised cluster of bounded action cycles,

· whose mass is the sum of confined action,

· whose identity is an addressable configuration in procedural space,

· whose stability is maintained through continuous iteration at the quantum level.

This is a generative account, not a metaphysical assurance.

6. Comparative Synthesis

Criterion	Bruno	Spinoza	Procedure Monism (Finn)
Defines the minimal unit?	No (infinite matter)	No (substance)	Yes (quantum of action)
Provides generative mechanism?	No (World-Soul)	No (necessity)	Yes (collision + iteration)
Treats time as fundamental?	No	No	Yes
Explains emergence?	No	No	Yes
Produces reconstructive ontology?	No	No	Yes
Distinguishes mass/energy/identity structurally?	No	No	Yes

Procedure Monism is generative because it specifies:

· minimal units,

· procedural rules,

· emergent outcomes.

Bruno and Spinoza are non-generative because they specify:

· global unities,

· verbal capacities,

· but no mechanisms.

7. Conclusion: From Descriptive Monism to Constructive Monism

Bruno and Spinoza broke decisively with medieval transcendence by declaring the One to be fully immanent.
Their courage and imagination reshaped Western philosophy.

But they remained caught in the scholastic inheritance of substantialist monism—a worldview that posits unity but lacks procedural articulation.

Their systems are architectures without engineering.

Finn’s Procedure Monism is not another metaphysical diagram but a generative ontology:

· quantised action,

· collision,

· iteration,

· bounded emergence,

· realness as output,

· identity as procedural stability.

It turns the metaphysical question—What is?—into the generative question—How is it produced?

Where Bruno and Spinoza give us infinite concepts, Procedure Monism gives us finite operations.
Where they offer cosmic narratives, Finn offers algorithmic generation.
Where they assert unity, Finn produces multiplicity from quantised events.

Thus, Procedure Monism is the first monism since the Pre-Socratics to convert metaphysics from static description into procedural generativity.

Shankara’s Advaita: The grand non-explanation

Home