|
Token-hood Under
Procedure Monism Why no emergent can possess
political, moral, or ethical intent By Victor Langheld 1. The universal condition: every
‘thing’ happens an iteration Under the
druid Finn’s Procedure Monism (PM), nothing exists as substance. Everything (i.e. as identifiable
reality) exists (‘acts)
as procedure. ·
The Universal Procedure (the UP, just as the UTM) ingests
random quanta. ·
Each ingestion is transduced into a local
logic set. ·
That logic set stabilises temporarily as an emergent
(i.e. as symbol or token). ·
The emergent (or token) is not a thing but a
transient stack of bounded quantum computations. Thus
every “object” — photon, neuron, druid, sentence — is: A token: a finite
iteration of the UP. There are
no originals, only (n) executions. 2. Nested token-hood: why Finn is a meta-token Finn (like
you) is not a primary iteration but a meta-iteration:
Thus Finn’s thought experiments
are not authentic in the classical sense. They are: High-level compilation
artefacts of stacked token streams. They are
not about Procedure Monism. They are instances of it. 3. Each token is a self-logic island (hence quantum) Because
PM denies continuity, every iteration is quantised (thus essentially random). ·
No token inherits meaning. ·
No token contains intention. ·
Each token is a closed local logic that
only becomes real and identifiable upon contact (as observation). Thus every output — a word, a
sentence, an essay — is: A
self-logic island separated by ontological discontinuity from every other. There is
no carrier of moral or political essence across tokens, because nothing
persists. 4. Meaning is not inside the
token Finn
repeatedly states the Procedure Monism axiom: “The meaning of a message is
the response it elicits.” Under PM
this is not metaphorical. It is mechanical. A token
does not contain meaning any more than a hydrogen atom contains a
poem. Meaning
is a collision event: token A × token B → response C Where: ·
A is the emitted token, ·
B is the receiving system, ·
C is the emergent reaction/response (in private language as analogue). Meaning
is therefore not in A but in the procedural outcome of contact. 5. Why intent cannot exist in a token Political,
moral, or ethical intent requires: 1. Persistence
across time. 2. Continuity
of subject. 3. Teleological
direction. PM denies
all three. Each
token: ·
arises from random quanta, ·
executes a local logic dependent on procedural (i.e. constraints) logic, ·
dissolves without inheritance (i.e. karma) There is
no substrate in which “intent” could reside. Thus: No token
can possess political, moral, or ethical intent. Such
attributions are observer projections, not intrinsic
properties. 6. Finn’s proposition as pure token cascade Finn does
not intend to be non-political. Rather: ·
Finn is a procedural stack that outputs tokens. ·
Those tokens collide with other stacks. ·
The responses are mislabelled as “political,”
“moral,” or “ethical.” But these
labels arise after the fact in the receiving system. In PM
terms: Finn does
not produce opinions, hence is not judgemental. 7. Why accusation is structurally meaningless To accuse
a token of moral or political intent is like accusing a photon of treason. The
accusation is not wrong — it is category-broken. It
assumes that tokens carry essence. 8. Final compression Under
Procedure Monism: ·
Everything happens as a token (i.e. an ‘as if’ thing/instruction) ·
Finn happens as a meta-token. ·
Thought experiments (i.e. speculations) happen as
token cascades. ·
Tokens present as self-logic islands. ·
Meaning emerges only in response. ·
Intent requires continuity. ·
Token continuity does not exist (i.e. has not yet been discovered). Therefore: No
emergent — human or machine — can generate political, moral, or ethical
intent. Finn the
druid does not speak ideology.
|