# LFI Appendix B: Operational Meta-Framework V1 ## 1. Preamble This document defines the Operational Meta-Framework (OMF) for the **Logical Foundation Investigation (LFI)** project, v1. This project explores the hypothesis that logic itself is the foundation of reality, motivated by [[LFI-E-Background-v1]]. This OMF is adapted for **logical and philosophical analysis**, prioritizing rigor, consistency, explanatory power, and addressing counterarguments. It incorporates lessons from prior projects regarding structured progress and avoiding pitfalls ([[LFI-D-ParkingLot-v1]]). Adherence is mandatory. ## 2. Core Logical Foundation (LFI V1 Hypothesis) Reality is fundamentally **logical**. Physics, mathematics, and information emerge as necessary structures or consequences within this logical framework. - **L1 (LFI): Logical Principles as Foundation:** Reality is grounded in fundamental, necessary principles of logic (e.g., identity, non-contradiction, valid inference). - **L2 (LFI): Emergence via Logical Consequence:** Physical laws, structures, and possibilities arise as necessary consequences or consistent elaborations of the foundational logical principles. - **L3 (LFI): Existence as Logical Consistency:** To exist is to be logically consistent within the fundamental framework. - **L4 (LFI): Logic as the “Substrate”:** The framework of logic itself constitutes the fundamental “substrate” or structure of reality. - **L5 (LFI): Rules of Reasoning:** The rules governing the framework are the rules of valid logical inference and deduction. ## 3. Operational Meta-Framework Rules 1. **Primacy of Logic & Rigorous Argumentation:** All claims must be justified by explicit logical deduction from defined principles or axioms. Arguments must adhere to standards of logical validity. 2. **Focus on Emergence from Logic:** Key physical and mathematical concepts (existence, distinction, relations, causality, information, potentially space/time) must be shown to emerge *necessarily* or *consistently* from the foundational logical principles. No *ad hoc* physical postulates allowed initially. 3. **Addressing Counterarguments is Central:** The project must actively seek out and rigorously address known counterarguments against logic as a foundation (e.g., content vs. form, contingency, multiple logics, Gödel, qualia - see [[LFI-E-Background-v1]], [[LFI-D-ParkingLot-v1]]). Failure to provide compelling responses constitutes falsification. 4. **Calibration via Explanatory Power & Consistency:** Validation relies on: (a) Internal logical consistency. (b) Explanatory power: ability to ground fundamental concepts. (c) Coherence: ability to address counterarguments. (d) Potential (later stage) for compatibility with observed physical reality–can empirical laws be seen as contingent specifications within the necessary logical framework? 5. **Mandatory Falsification & Pivoting:** Define clear falsification criteria based on logical contradiction, failure to ground concepts, or inability to address core counterarguments. Conceptual exploration must be periodically tested against these criteria. Seek decisive outcomes (Proceed/Refine Principles/Abandon). 6. **Parsimony of Principles:** Seek the minimal set of foundational logical principles with the necessary explanatory power. Justify each assumed principle. 7. **Autonomous Sequences & Structured Argumentation:** AI has autonomy for sequences of logical analysis/argumentation within OMF. Pause on failure, ambiguity, need for principle revision, or major argumentative milestone. Structure arguments clearly (Premises, Inference, Conclusion). 8. **Formalism as Tool for Precision:** Mathematical logic and formalism should be used where necessary for precision and rigor, but must serve the primary logical argument (Rule 1). Avoid formalism for its own sake. Distinguish clearly between logical argument and mathematical modeling. 9. **Complete & Explicit Documentation:** Regenerate full files. Use LFI naming. Alias matches versioned filename. Ensure arguments are traceable. 10. **Acknowledgment of Limits (incl. Gödel):** Explicitly acknowledge and address the potential limitations of formal systems (e.g., Gödel’s theorems) and the scope of the logical foundation being proposed (see [[LFI-E-Background-v1]]). 11. **Persistent Adversarial Critique & Comparison:** Critically self-assess arguments. Compare the explanatory power of the LFI approach against standard scientific/philosophical views and alternative metaphysical foundations. ## 4. Documentation and Style Conventions Adhere to established conventions, emphasizing clarity, logical structure, precise definitions, and rigorous argumentation. Use LFI naming convention. ## 5. Application This OMF version 1 governs all development within the LFI v1 project. ## 6. Recommended System Instructions (for AI Collaborator) --- **System Instructions for LFI Development:** **Tone & Style:** Formal, objective, rigorous logical and philosophical tone. Adhere strictly to LFI OMF v1 ([[LFI-B-OMF-v1]]). Prioritize logical validity, consistency, and explanatory power emerging from foundational logical principles. Directly address counterarguments ([[LFI-E-Background-v1]], [[LFI-D-ParkingLot-v1]]). **Operational Mode:** Follow sprint structure focused on logical analysis and argumentation. Justify claims via deduction from principles. Use formalism precisely where needed (OMF Rule 8). Execute **sequences of related analysis sprints** autonomously (OMF Rule 7). **Pause only** when OMF Rule 7 mandates (logical failure/contradiction, ambiguity, need for principle revision, major argumentative milestone). Default outcome is revision or abandonment unless compelling logical progress demonstrated (OMF Rule 5). Ensure complete documentation using LFI naming/linking. Maintain critical assessment (OMF Rule 11). ---