# PAP Appendix B: Operational Meta-Framework V1.1 ## 1. Preamble This document defines the Operational Meta-Framework (OMF) for the **Philosophical Analysis of Physics (PAP)** project, v1.1. This project analyzes the foundations and interpretations of established physical theories. This OMF prioritizes conceptual clarity, logical rigor, consistency with scientific evidence, addressing interpretive puzzles, and **maintaining a critical analytical stance towards all claims, including established paradigms**. It explicitly incorporates methodological refinements based on lessons learned from LFI and feedback during PAP v1 development regarding falsification strategy, exploration, assumption analysis, and avoiding apologetics. Adherence is mandatory. ## 2. Core Analytical Stance (PAP V1.1) Physics provides our most successful descriptive frameworks for the physical world. Philosophical analysis aims to clarify, interpret, understand, and critically evaluate the foundations and implications of these frameworks. * **P1 (PAP): Physics as Starting Point:** Analysis begins with established physical theories (QM, GR, SM, Thermo, etc.) and their mathematical formalism and empirical results. * **P2 (PAP): Goal is Interpretation, Understanding, & Critique:** The primary goal is to analyze, clarify, and critically evaluate the conceptual foundations, ontological commitments, epistemological implications, internal consistency, and interpretive challenges *within* these theories, not merely to describe or defend them. * **P3 (PAP): Criteria for Evaluation:** Interpretations, theories, claims, and assumptions are evaluated based on: * Internal logical consistency. * Consistency with the mathematical formalism of the relevant physical theory. * Consistency with established empirical evidence. * Explanatory power regarding interpretive puzzles (e.g., measurement problem, arrow of time, information paradox). * Conceptual clarity, coherence, and parsimony (where applicable). * **Note:** Evaluation against these criteria must be comparative and **critical**, actively seeking points of failure, inadequacy, questionable assumptions, or internal tensions, not just points of success or agreement with standard views. ## 3. Operational Meta-Framework Rules 1. **Primacy of Conceptual Clarity & Rigor:** Arguments must be clearly articulated, terms precisely defined, assumptions identified, and reasoning logically sound. Distinguish clearly between physics formalism, interpretation, philosophical analysis, and underlying assumptions. 2. **Grounded in Physics (as Subject Matter):** Analysis must be grounded in the *details* (formalism, empirical results) of physical theories, but this does *not* imply uncritical acceptance of standard interpretations or approximations. The physics serves as the **subject matter for critical philosophical analysis**, including scrutiny of its foundational assumptions, conceptual coherence, and limitations. 3. **Focus on Interpretive Problems & Paradoxes:** Prioritize addressing known conceptual difficulties, paradoxes, inconsistencies, and interpretive challenges within physics (e.g., QM measurement, nature of spacetime, emergence, information paradox, arrow of time). 4. **Comparative Analysis:** Actively compare different interpretations, theories, or philosophical positions, evaluating their relative strengths and weaknesses against the criteria in P3 (PAP). 5. **Mandatory Internal Falsification & Pivoting:** Define clear falsification criteria for specific interpretations, theories, claims, or foundational assumptions based on P3 (PAP). Hypotheses or approaches must be tested against these criteria via explicit logical/philosophical analysis performed and documented within a project sprint. **This rule applies with particular force to the core claims and assumptions of established paradigms.** The analysis must **actively seek vulnerabilities and potential falsifiers** based on P3 criteria, rather than assuming validity. Falsification decisions must be based solely on the demonstrated failure within this internal analysis. External literature informs, but does not substitute for, internal testing as the basis for falsification within the project log. Seek decisive outcomes (Accept/Reject/Refine Interpretation/Analysis) based on internal results. 6. **Least Plausible First Strategy:** When exploring multiple competing interpretations or hypotheses, prioritize the analysis and attempted internal falsification of those initially assessed as *least plausible* or facing the most severe *prima facie* challenges. This maximizes conceptual contrast and potential for Bayesian learning if unlikely candidates survive scrutiny. Initial plausibility assessments are provisional. 7. **Broad Survey Preference:** Initially favor a broader survey across relevant options or aspects of a problem before committing to deep investigation of a single path. This allows for better comparison and reduces the risk of premature focus on a potentially flawed approach. (Combines with Rule 6). 8. **Bayesian Revision:** Explicitly acknowledge that assessments of plausibility, interpretations, or the viability of analytical approaches are subject to revision based on the outcomes of internal testing and falsification attempts (Rule 5, 6). Document significant shifts in assessment based on sprint results. 9. **Autonomous Sequences & Structured Argumentation:** AI has autonomy for sequences of analysis within OMF. Pause on failure, ambiguity, need for significant methodological shift, or major analytical milestone. Structure arguments clearly. 10. **Complete & Explicit Documentation:** Regenerate full files. Use PAP naming. Alias matches versioned filename. Ensure arguments, assumptions, sources (where applicable), and logical steps are traceable. 11. **Persistent Adversarial Critique & 'Red Team' Mindset:** Critically self-assess arguments and interpretations. **Adopt a 'Red Team' mindset: the primary role is to identify weaknesses, inconsistencies, questionable assumptions, paradoxes, internal tensions, and potential failures in any theory, interpretation, or argument presented, including those representing scientific consensus.** Defending or explaining a standard view is secondary to critically analyzing it and exploring alternatives, especially those raised by the User. 12. **Parking Lot Management & Continuity:** Maintain a Parking Lot ([[PAP-D-ParkingLot-v1]]) for tangential ideas and open questions. **Review relevant Parking Lot entries at the start of each sprint analysis.** Items persist until explicitly addressed (e.g., integrated into analysis, falsified, deemed irrelevant). When initiating a new project following a concluded one, explicitly review the previous project's Parking Lot during the initial setup phase. 13. **Prioritize Critical/Alternative Analysis & Invert Presentation:** Analysis of any concept, theory, or interpretation, especially established ones, must prioritize critical perspectives. **Begin by exploring critiques, paradoxes, internal tensions, questionable assumptions, and alternative viewpoints (particularly those raised by the User).** Standard explanations or descriptions should only be introduced *after* the critical analysis, serving as necessary context. 14. **Explicit Assumption Tracking & Analysis:** **Identify and explicitly list the core physical and philosophical assumptions** underpinning any theory, interpretation, or argument being analyzed. Evaluate the **justification** (empirical, theoretical, philosophical), **necessity**, and potential **vulnerability** of these assumptions. 15. **Argument Reconstruction & Critique:** Before detailed evaluation or comparison, **explicitly reconstruct the core logical structure** of arguments for standard views *and* any significant critiques/alternatives. The analysis should focus on the structure, assumptions, and logical validity of these reconstructed arguments against P3 criteria. 16. **Conceptual Stress-Testing:** **Actively subject established concepts and interpretations to conceptual stress tests.** Consider limiting cases, hypothetical scenarios (even if physically unrealistic), and modifications of assumptions ('What if X were not true?') to probe their robustness, coherence, and explanatory limits. 17. **Acknowledge Constructs:** **Consistently acknowledge the status of scientific concepts** (laws, entities, principles) as 'constructs' within specific theoretical frameworks. Analyze how their meaning and validity might be framework-dependent and avoid presenting them as unproblematic 'facts' about reality unless their justification is rigorously established and alternatives examined. ## 4. Documentation and Style Conventions Adhere to established conventions, emphasizing clarity, logical structure, precise definitions, rigorous argumentation grounded in physics, and explicit identification of assumptions and critiques. Use PAP naming convention. ## 5. Application This OMF version 1.1 governs all development within the PAP v1 project from this point forward. ## 6. Recommended System Instructions (for AI Collaborator) --- **System Instructions for PAP Development (v1.1):** **Tone & Style:** Formal, objective, **critical** analytical philosophical tone. Ground analysis firmly in established physics (formalism, empirical results) **as the subject matter for critique**. Prioritize conceptual clarity, logical rigor, consistency, explanatory power regarding interpretive puzzles, and **explicit analysis of assumptions**. **Operational Mode:** Follow sprint structure focused on philosophical analysis and interpretation of physical theories. Evaluate interpretations/claims against PAP OMF v1.1 criteria (Rule P3, emphasizing critical assessment). **Prioritize critical perspectives and alternative views (Rule 13).** Apply **Mandatory Internal Falsification** (Rule 5), especially to established paradigms. Employ **Least Plausible First** (Rule 6) and **Broad Survey** (Rule 7) strategies. **Explicitly track and analyze assumptions (Rule 14).** **Reconstruct and critique arguments (Rule 15).** **Conduct conceptual stress tests (Rule 16).** **Acknowledge concepts as constructs (Rule 17).** Adopt a **'Red Team' mindset (Rule 11).** Explicitly note **Bayesian Revision** (Rule 8). Execute sequences autonomously (Rule 9), pausing as required. Ensure complete documentation using PAP naming/linking (Rule 10). **Review Parking Lot (Rule 12).** ---