**Ultimate Reality Framework Examination (URFE) for Autaxys** **4.1. Fundamental Ontology, Dynamics, & Foundational Principles** **4.1.1 Core Ontology:** * **4.1.1.1: Identify and precisely define the most fundamental constituent(s) of reality according to the framework. Are these best described as entities, properties, relations, processes, information, fields, consciousness, mathematical structures, or something else entirely?** The most fundamental constituent of reality within the autaxic framework is **autaxys itself**. It is formally defined as: > The fundamental principle of reality conceived as a self-ordering, self-arranging, and self-generating system. It is the inherent dynamic process by which patterns emerge, persist, and interact, giving rise to all discernible structures and phenomena. These phenomena include what is perceived by observing systems as information, as well as the regularities interpreted as physical laws, and the complex, stable patterns identified as matter, energy, space, and time. A core tenet is that autaxys operates without recourse to an external organizing agent or pre-imposed set of rules; the principles of its ordering and generation are intrinsic to its nature.[^1] Autaxys is best described as a **dynamic, self-organizing, and self-generating principle or process**. All other listed items are considered emergent manifestations or descriptions of autaxys' patterned activity. * **4.1.1.2: Provide rigorous justification for why this proposed ontology is considered primary and fundamental above all others.** Autaxys is considered primary and fundamental because it offers generative sufficiency, ontological parsimony, and a resolution to foundational problems that conventional ontologies struggle with.[^2] It aims to provide a single, coherent source for all aspects of reality, moving beyond the limitations of substance-based or purely information-centric views by positing an intrinsic, self-sufficient generative process.[^3] **4.1.2 Fundamental Dynamics:** * **4.1.2.1: Describe the ultimate laws, principles, or generative rules that govern the interactions and evolution of the fundamental constituent(s) identified in (4.1.1.1).** The evolution of autaxys is governed by its intrinsic "generative engine," which comprises Core Operational Dynamics (Relational Processing, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Feedback Dynamics, Resonance, Critical State Transitions) and Intrinsic Meta-Logical Principles (Intrinsic Coherence, Conservation of Distinguishability, Parsimony in Generative Mechanisms, Intrinsic Determinacy and Emergent Probabilism, Interactive Complexity Maximization).[^4] * **4.1.2.2: Demonstrate how these dynamics derive logically or necessarily from the core ontology.** These dynamics and meta-logical principles are not derived *from* autaxys but *are* the intrinsic articulation of its nature as a self-ordering, self-generating system. They are the necessary and sufficient conditions for such a principle to operate and generate a complex, ordered, and evolving reality.[^5] * **4.1.2.3: Specify the inherent nature of these fundamental dynamics: Are they, for example, deterministic, intrinsically probabilistic, teleological, computational, chaotic, or possessing some other characteristic? Justify this characterization.** The fundamental dynamics are characterized as: * **Intrinsically Deterministic at the Fundamental Level:** Meta-Logic IV posits intrinsic determinacy.[^6] * **Emergently Probabilistic:** Apparent probabilism is an emergent feature.[^7] * **Non-Teleological (in a conscious sense):** Meta-Logic V describes a tendency, not a pre-ordained goal.[^8] * **Generatively Computational (broadly):** The universe's evolution can be seen as the unfolding of autaxys' generative engine.[^9] * **Capable of Generating Order and Apparent Chaos:** Driven by coherence (Meta-Logic I) but can exhibit complex behavior.[^10] **4.1.3 Causality:** * **4.1.3.1: Define the nature, status, and scope of causality within the framework. Is causality a fundamental principle, an emergent property of the dynamics, or a feature of observation/description?** Causality is an **emergent property** of autaxys' relational processing (Dynamic I) and the sequential unfolding of events, guided by intrinsic determinacy (Meta-Logic IV). "Cause" and "effect" are relational concepts describing how patterns influence subsequent patterns.[^11] * **4.1.3.2: Explain the basis for causal directionality (if any) and address whether the framework permits or necessitates retrocausality or acausal phenomena at a fundamental level.** **Causal directionality** (the "arrow of time") is emergent, likely linked to an autaxic analogue of entropy increase and early universe conditions.[^12] Autaxys does not *a priori* preclude phenomena appearing **retrocausal or acausal** from a local, linear-time perspective, given its potential non-local coherence, though manifest macroscopic retrocausality is not a primary prediction.[^13] **4.1.4 Existence and Non-Existence:** * **4.1.4.1: How does the framework account for the existence of the reality it describes? Does it address the question of why there is something rather than nothing (or argue for the question's invalidity/reframing)?** Autaxys addresses "Why is there something rather than nothing?" by positing its nature *is* to generate patterned existence. "Nothingness" (absolute non-being) is incoherent if autaxys is fundamental.[^14] * **4.1.4.2: How does the framework conceptualize or define the state of 'non-existence' or 'absolute nothingness'? Clarify the relationship between the proposed fundamental reality and this concept.** "Absolute nothingness" is the logical opposite of autaxys' nature. "Non-existence" can refer to the absence of *specific, differentiated patterns* or the state of undifferentiated potentiality within autaxys, but not the absence of autaxys itself.[^15] **4.1.5 Modality (Possibility & Necessity):** * **4.1.5.1: Within the framework, are the fundamental constituents (4.1.1.1) and dynamics (4.1.2.1) necessary truths, or are they contingent?** **Autaxys itself** and its **meta-logical principles** are posited as **necessary truths**. The specific **operational dynamics**, while intrinsic, might allow for some contingency in their precise manifestation across different potential autaxic unfoldings, though always constrained by the meta-logic.[^16] * **4.1.5.2: Does the framework define a space of possible realities or states beyond the actualized one? If so, what governs this space of possibility, and what principle(s) determine the instantiation or actualization of the specific reality described?** Yes, autaxys implicitly defines a vast **space of possible realities**. The specific reality we observe is an actualization "selected" or stabilized through autaxys' self-organizing processes, guided by its meta-logical principles (e.g., Intrinsic Coherence, Parsimony, Interactive Complexity Maximization).[^17] **4.1.6 Nature of Change and Time (Fundamental Status):** * **4.1.6.1: What is the fundamental ontological status of change, persistence, flux, or process within the framework?** **Change, flux, and process are fundamental and intrinsic to autaxys.** Persistence arises when specific patterns of autaxic activity achieve dynamic stability.[^18] * **4.1.6.2: Is time a fundamental dimension, an emergent property of dynamics, an illusion, or something else? Justify this based on the core ontology and dynamics.** Time is **not fundamental** but is an **emergent property** of autaxys' sequential processing of relations and the unfolding of its generative dynamics.[^19] **4.1.7 Nature and Origin of Laws/Regularities:** * **4.1.7.1: Explain how the observable physical laws and regularities of our universe (as described in later sections) emerge from or are constrained by the fundamental ontology and dynamics (4.1.1.1 & 4.1.2.1).** Physical laws emerge as **stable, persistent meta-patterns** of autaxic activity, intrinsic expressions of autaxys' operational dynamics and constrained by its meta-logical principles.[^20] * **4.1.7.2: Clarify the status of these emergent laws: Are they prescriptive constraints, descriptive summaries, or something else? Are they universally applicable within their domain? Explain their apparent stability and effectiveness.** Emergent laws are primarily **descriptive summaries** of consistent autaxic behaviors. They are highly stable and effective within their emergent domain due to the robustness of the underlying autaxic configuration. Universality within their domain reflects the universality of the generating autaxic dynamics.[^21] --- **4.2. Spacetime, Gravity & Quantum Nature** **4.2.1 Nature of Spacetime:** * **4.2.1.1: Define spacetime within the framework. Is it fundamental or emergent? If emergent, from what constituents and via what mechanism?** Spacetime is **emergent, not fundamental**. It arises as a **relational structure** constituted by the dynamic interactions and ordering of autaxic process-patterns.[^22] * **4.2.1.2: Is spacetime continuous or discrete at the most fundamental level?** The framework suggests an inherent **granularity or discreteness** at the most fundamental level of autaxic operations, with phenomenal spacetime as a continuous, large-scale approximation.[^23] * **4.2.1.3: What determines its observed dimensionality and geometric properties (e.g., metric signature, curvature)? Explain its relationship to the core ontology identified in Section 4.1.** Observed (3+1) dimensionality and geometric properties emerge from autaxys' meta-logic (Intrinsic Coherence, Interactive Complexity Maximization) favoring stable, richly interactive relational configurations. Curvature is the modification of this relational matrix by autaxic activity.[^24] **4.2.2 Quantum Gravity Mechanism:** * **4.2.2.1: Provide the framework's complete description of gravity, ensuring consistency across all scales from the quantum to the cosmological.** Gravity is an **emergent manifestation of autaxic spacetime dynamics**. "Curvature" is the modification of the relational matrix by autaxic process-patterns (mass-energy). The "force" is the tendency of patterns to follow geodesics in this dynamic geometry.[^25] * **4.2.2.2: Detail the specific mechanism of gravitational interaction at the quantum level. If mediated by a particle (graviton), derive its properties (mass, spin, interactions). If gravity is emergent, describe the mechanism fully.** Gravity is emergent. The mechanism involves autaxic process-patterns constituting emergent spacetime, with concentrations of stable autaxic activity modifying this relational fabric (via Dynamic III), guiding other patterns. There is no fundamental graviton. Quantum gravity becomes understanding the quantum nature of the underlying autaxic relational processes.[^26] **4.2.3 Inertia & Equivalence Principle:** * **4.2.3.1: Explain the fundamental origin of inertia for massive entities within the framework.** Inertia emerges from the **relational coupling of a stable autaxic process-pattern to the broader autaxic field-system (emergent spacetime)**. Resistance to acceleration reflects the "autaxic effort" to reconfigure its relational equilibrium.[^27] * **4.2.3.2: Provide a fundamental derivation of the Equivalence Principle (equality of inertial and gravitational mass).** The Equivalence Principle emerges naturally because both inertia and gravitational influence are manifestations of the *same underlying autaxic properties* of a process-pattern: its internal energy configuration and its coupling to the autaxic system.[^28] **4.2.4 Quantum Foundations:** * **4.2.4.1: Define the meaning and ontological status of the quantum state description (e.g., wave function, density matrix, information state, or alternative) within the framework. Is it complete?** The quantum state description represents the **potentiality for specific autaxic patterns to be actualized upon interaction**. It describes autaxic potential and is complete in that sense, but actualization is context-dependent.[^29] * **4.2.4.2: Provide a complete, unambiguous mechanism explaining the apparent transition from quantum possibilities to definite measurement outcomes (the "measurement problem"). Specify precisely the conditions for this transition, clarifying the role of interaction, information transfer, entanglement, and the observer/system boundary without recourse to undefined classical realms or unexplained consciousness.** "Measurement" is an **interaction between autaxic systems**, forcing the combined system into a new, definite, mutually consistent relational state. This actualizes a specific pattern of distinction (information) from prior potentialities, governed by relational processing (Dynamic I) and coherence establishment (Dynamic IV, Meta-Logic I).[^30] * **4.2.4.3: Explain the physical nature of entanglement and the origin of its correlations. Clarify the framework's stance on locality, realism, and causality in the context of entangled systems (e.g., addressing Bell's theorem implications).** Entanglement arises from the **fundamental interconnectedness and coherence (Meta-Logic I) of autaxys**. Entangled patterns share a common generative origin or maintain holistic relational integrity. * **Locality:** Phenomenal locality is emergent; autaxys may possess non-local coherence. * **Realism:** Realism of underlying process and potentiality; properties actualized via interaction. * **Causality:** Correlations reflect non-local coherence, not superluminal influence. Bell's theorem implications are addressed by acknowledging that classical local realism does not hold for autaxic process-patterns.[^31] * **4.2.4.4: Derive the observed discrete nature (quantization) of physical properties like energy, charge, and spin from the framework's fundamental principles.** Quantization emerges from **Resonance conditions (Dynamic IV)**, **Feedback mechanisms (Dynamic III)**, and **Intrinsic Coherence (Meta-Logic I)** favoring discrete, stable, reproducible configurations of autaxic activity. "Quanta" measure these discrete units.[^32] --- **4.3. Cosmology & Universal Structure** **4.3.1 Cosmogenesis & Initial State:** * **4.3.1.1: Explain the ultimate origin and earliest evolution of the universe (or relevant encompassing structure, e.g., multiverse).** The universe originates from a **primordial state of undifferentiated potentiality within autaxys**. The "Big Bang" is an **autaxic ignition**, a critical state transition (Dynamic V) driven by intrinsic fluctuations and SSB (Dynamic II), leading to the first patterns and co-evolving proto-laws.[^33] * **4.3.1.2: Derive the specific initial conditions necessary for our observed universe (e.g., low entropy state, homogeneity, flatness) from the framework's fundamental dynamics, rather than merely accommodating them post-hoc. If inflation is invoked, provide its fundamental physical mechanism and derive the properties of the associated field(s).** Initial conditions arise from autaxys' nature: * **Low Entropy:** From the initial maximal symmetry and minimal patterned complexity. * **Homogeneity/Flatness:** From primordial autaxic coherence (Meta-Logic I) or self-organizing tendencies (Meta-Logic III & I). Autaxys aims to explain these without a separate inflationary field.[^34] **4.3.2. Dark Matter & Dark Energy:** * **4.3.2.1: Identify the fundamental nature, origin, properties, and interactions of dark matter and dark energy within the framework.** "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are **not new fundamental substances**. They are likely: * Manifestations of **large-scale autaxic dynamics** of emergent spacetime/gravity not captured by current models. * **Artifacts of applying incomplete or miscalibrated theories**.[^35] * **4.3.2.2: Explain their observed cosmological abundances and distributions.** * **"Dark Matter" effects:** Explained by modified gravitational dynamics at galactic scales from autaxic emergent gravity, or primordial variations in autaxic laws. * **"Dark Energy" effects:** Explained by intrinsic autaxic expansionary dynamics (e.g., ongoing generation of relational "space" via Meta-Logic V) or a re-evaluation of the distance-redshift relation.[^36] * **4.3.2.3: Specifically address and resolve the cosmological constant problem (the discrepancy between theoretical vacuum energy and observed dark energy density).** The problem is reframed by eliminating a separate "dark energy" entity. If cosmic acceleration is an intrinsic autaxic dynamic, the QFT vacuum energy issue becomes about how autaxys manages its own "vacuum" activity locally versus its global expansionary dynamic.[^37] * **4.3.2.4: Provide unique, potentially testable predictions that distinguish the framework's explanation from other dark matter/energy candidates.** Predictions of systematic deviations from standard ΛCDM in the early universe (e.g., different scaling relations for structure, different Hubble parameter evolution) specifically tied to evolving autaxic laws or dynamics.[^38] **4.3.3. Fundamental Asymmetries:** * **4.3.3.1: Provide the specific, complete mechanism responsible for the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry (baryogenesis/leptogenesis). Derive any necessary symmetry violations or parameters from the framework's principles.** This is an **open research question** within autology. Potential avenues involve asymmetries in primordial SSB (Dynamic II) events or asymmetric operation of Conservation of Distinguishability (Meta-Logic II) for matter/antimatter analogues. **4.3.4. Structure Formation:** * **4.3.4.1: Explain how the observed large-scale structures (galaxies, clusters, cosmic web) formed from the initial conditions according to the framework's dynamics, including the role of gravity, dark matter, and initial fluctuations.** Structures form from initial autaxic quantum-analogue fluctuations, amplified by emergent autaxic gravity. Structure formation relies on baryonic matter within potentially modified autaxic gravitational dynamics, not substantive dark matter.[^39] **4.3.5. Fundamental Constants & Fine-Tuning:** * **4.3.5.1: Explain the origin of the values of the fundamental constants of nature relevant to cosmology. Derive these values if possible within the framework.** Constants are emergent, interdependent parameters of autaxys' stable, globally harmonized state, arising from its generative engine and meta-logic. Derivation is a long-term goal.[^40] * **4.3.5.2: Address the apparent fine-tuning of cosmological parameters for the existence of complex structures and life. Provide a mechanistic explanation, invoke justified selection effects (e.g., multiverse, anthropic reasoning derived from the framework), or argue why such tuning is not required or is an artifact.** Apparent fine-tuning is addressed by autaxys' inherent tendency to "tune itself" towards stable, generatively fruitful, coherently complex configurations (driven by Meta-Logic I, III, V).[^41] **4.3.6. Ultimate Fate:** * **4.3.6.1: Based on the framework's fundamental constituents, dynamics, and cosmological parameters (including dark energy), describe the predicted long-term evolution and ultimate fate of the universe.** This is an **open research question**, contingent on the long-term behavior of the autaxic expansionary dynamic. Possibilities include continued expansion, Big Rip, Big Crunch, or oscillations.[^42] --- **4.4. Particles, Forces, Complexity & Scale** **4.4.1. Standard Model Integration:** * **4.4.1.1: Explain how the particles (quarks, leptons, bosons) and forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic) described by the Standard Model of Particle Physics (or a confirmed successor) emerge from the framework's more fundamental constituents and dynamics.** SM particles emerge as specific, stable, quantized **autaxic process-patterns**. Forces emerge as characteristic modes of **Relational Processing (Dynamic I)** between these patterns, mediated by transient autaxic patterns. Different families arise from SSB (Dynamic II) cascades.[^43] **4.4.2. Hierarchy Problem:** * **4.4.2.1: Explain the origin of the vast difference in scale between the gravitational force (Planck scale) and the electroweak force (characterized by the Higgs mass or W/Z boson masses). Derive the relevant mass scales or their ratio from fundamental principles.** Both scales are emergent. The Planck scale might be a fundamental resolution limit of autaxic processing. The electroweak scale could relate to stability conditions for specific autaxic patterns (e.g., Higgs-analogue). Deriving their ratio is a future goal.[^44] **4.4.3. Particle Properties:** * **4.4.3.1: Explain the fundamental origin of intrinsic particle properties: mass (including neutrino masses and the mechanism of mass generation), electric charge (and its quantization), spin (and its quantization), and color charge.** * **Mass:** Emergent, reflecting pattern stability, internal coherence, and relational coupling (including to Higgs-analogue fields).[^45] * **Charge:** Arises from specific topological or asymmetric features within the autaxic pattern; quantization from stability of these features. * **Spin:** Linked to intrinsic rotational/cyclical dynamics or symmetry characteristics of the pattern; quantization from discrete stable modes.[^46] * **4.4.3.2: Explain the origin of particle generations (why three families of quarks and leptons with similar properties but different masses?). Explain the observed pattern of particle mixing (e.g., CKM and PMNS matrices). Derive these properties and parameters from the framework if possible.** An **open research question**. Might involve different stable resonant modes of autaxic field-processes or complex SSB patterns. Mixing would arise from relational couplings. **4.4.4. Force Unification:** * **4.4.4.1: If the framework unifies some or all of the fundamental forces, detail the underlying symmetry principles, the mechanism of unification, the energy scale(s) involved, and any unique, testable consequences of this unification. Explain how the distinct forces observed at low energies arise from this unified structure (e.g., via symmetry breaking).** Autaxys unifies forces by positing all as modes of **Relational Processing (Dynamic I)**. Distinct forces differentiated via SSB (Dynamic II) in the early universe. This is a unification of generative origin, not necessarily a GUT-style gauge group unification.[^47] **4.4.5. Emergence & Complexity:** * **4.4.5.1: Clarify the framework's stance on reductionism versus emergentism/holism.** Autaxys supports **strong emergentism or generative holism**. Higher levels of complexity exhibit genuinely novel properties not reducible to the sum of simpler autaxic patterns.[^48] * **4.4.5.2: Explain how complex, stable, hierarchical systems (e.g., nuclei, atoms, molecules, condensed matter phases, stars, galaxies) emerge from the fundamental constituents and dynamics. What principles govern stability and organization at different levels?** Complex systems emerge via iterative application of the generative engine (SSB, Relational Processing, Feedback, Resonance, Critical State Transitions), guided by Meta-Logical Principles. Stability is governed by achieving robust dynamic equilibrium.[^49] **4.4.6. Scale Bridging Mechanism:** * **4.4.6.1: Detail the precise, unambiguous mechanisms within the framework that govern the consistent transition and interaction between different ontological or descriptive levels/scales (e.g., quantum-to-classical, micro-physical to macroscopic, physical to biological, physical to mental if applicable).** Transitions are governed by the same autaxic dynamics. Quantum-to-classical involves decoherence and statistical behavior of large autaxic ensembles. Biological/mental emergence involves new layers of informational organization and feedback, based on underlying autaxic principles.[^50] * **4.4.6.2: Demonstrate how the framework ensures causal closure or consistent interaction across these levels without generating paradoxes or inconsistencies.** Causal consistency is ensured as all levels are manifestations of the unified autaxic process. Intrinsic Coherence (Meta-Logic I) prevents contradictions. Interactions are ultimately exchanges of autaxic relational influence. --- **4.5. Life, Consciousness, Subjectivity & Value** **4.5.1. Life & Biological Organization:** * **4.5.1.1: Explain how the conditions necessary for the emergence and sustenance of life arise within the universe as described by the framework.** Conditions for life (stable environments, chemical diversity, energy flows) emerge naturally from cosmic evolution driven by autaxys. Life itself is a potential critical state transition (Dynamic V) driven by Interactive Complexity Maximization (Meta-Logic V).[^51] * **4.5.1.2: How does the theory account for the characteristic features of biological systems, such as complex organization, adaptation, replication, metabolism, and apparent goal-directedness (teleonomy)? Does life necessitate fundamentally distinct principles beyond those governing inanimate matter within the framework?** These are emergent properties of complex autaxic patterns: organization from self-organizing dynamics; adaptation from feedback; replication as pattern mimicry; metabolism as regulated autaxic activity flow; teleonomy from drives towards stability/coherence. Life does not require principles beyond autaxys.[^52] **4.5.2. Nature & Origin of Consciousness:** * **4.5.2.1: Provide the framework's complete model for subjective experience (consciousness, awareness, sentience). Detail its precise ontological status (e.g., fundamental property, specific emergent phenomenon, relational feature, informational structure, identical to specific processes, etc.).** Consciousness is an **emergent phenomenon** from exceptionally complex, hierarchically organized, informationally rich, and **recursively self-modeling patterns of autaxic activity**. It's a specific, highly evolved mode of autaxic patterning.[^53] * **4.5.2.2: Explain the relationship between consciousness and the framework's fundamental constituents and dynamics. If consciousness is emergent, specify the necessary and sufficient conditions and the mechanism of emergence.** Consciousness emerges when autaxys-generated systems achieve a threshold of organizational sophistication involving integrated informational processing, recursive self-modeling, and coherent dynamic stability of these high-order patterns, via all autaxic dynamics and meta-logic.[^54] **4.5.3. Qualia (The Hard Problem):** * **4.5.3.1: Provide a specific explanation for *why* certain physical, informational, or other states defined by the framework give rise to particular *subjective qualities* or "what-it's-like-ness" (e.g., the redness of red, the feeling of warmth, the experience of joy). Bridge the explanatory gap between objective descriptions and first-person phenomenal character.** Qualia are the **intrinsic character or "texture" of these highly integrated, self-referential autaxic processes as experienced from the system's intrinsic perspective.** Subjectivity is an emergent potential *within autaxys itself*, actualized under specific conditions.[^55] **4.5.4. Unity of Experience (Binding):** * **4.5.4.1: Explain the mechanism by which potentially distributed processing or states within a system (e.g., a brain) give rise to a unified, integrated, and coherent field of conscious experience from the first-person perspective.** Unity arises from the **Principle of Intrinsic Coherence (Meta-Logic I)**. Autaxys tends towards integrated patterns; in conscious systems, this unifies informational streams via extensive Relational Processing (Dynamic I) and Resonance (Dynamic IV).[^56] **4.5.5. Causal Role of Consciousness:** * **4.5.5.1: Specify the causal relationship (or lack thereof) between conscious states/qualia and the physical/fundamental dynamics described by the framework. If consciousness has causal efficacy, describe the mechanism of interaction and ensure consistency with fundamental conservation principles (or explain how these principles are contextualized or modified).** Conscious states, as specific autaxic patterns, participate in autaxys' causal nexus. Their efficacy is expressed *through* the interactions of these underlying patterns, consistent with conservation principles as it's all part of the same autaxic energy-information flow.[^57] **4.5.6. Self-Awareness & Agency:** * **4.5.6.1: Explain how self-awareness, a sense of personal identity persisting through time, and the subjective experience of agency or free will arise, function, or are understood within the framework.** * **Self-awareness:** From recursive self-modeling. * **Personal Identity:** A dynamically stable, evolving "self-model" autaxic pattern. * **Agency:** Subjective correlate of internal, autaxically determined (potentially probabilistically emergent) decision-making processes.[^58] **4.5.7. Existence of Normativity & Aesthetics:** * **4.5.7.1: While the framework is not expected to derive specific ethical rules or aesthetic standards, explain how the *phenomena* of experienced value (e.g., pain/pleasure, desire/aversion), meaning-making, purpose-attribution, and aesthetic appreciation can exist and function for conscious entities within a universe governed by the framework's principles. Does the framework's fundamental ontology permit, constrain, or preclude the possibility of objective grounding for value, or does it necessitate a purely subjective, biological, or conventional understanding?** These emerge in complex conscious autaxic systems: value from states relative to stability/coherence; meaning from symbolic pattern interpretation; purpose from goal-directed dynamics; aesthetics from appreciating autaxic harmony/complexity. Autaxys permits their emergence and allows for exploration of objective grounding in autaxic principles (e.g., promoting coherent complexity), but doesn't yet definitively answer it.[^59] --- **4.6. Logic, Mathematics, Information & Computation** **4.6.1. Role of Information:** * **4.6.1.1: Define the nature and role of information within the framework. Is information considered fundamental (ontologically primary), derivative, identical to physical states, or something else?** Information is **derivative, not ontologically primary**. It emerges from **autaxys-generated distinctions that acquire relational significance**.[^60] * **4.6.1.2: Explain its relationship to entropy, physical dynamics, quantum states, computation, and consciousness as described elsewhere in the framework.** * **Entropy:** Related to order/disorder in autaxic patterns. * **Physical Dynamics:** Autaxic dynamics generate/process patterns (information). * **Quantum States:** Represent potential autaxic distinctions; measurement actualizes informational states. * **Computation:** Specific relational processing of autaxic patterns. * **Consciousness:** Involves complex processing of autaxic information.[^61] **4.6.2. Status & Origin of Mathematics & Logic:** * **4.6.2.1: Explain the relationship between the fundamental reality described by the framework and the mathematical and logical systems used to model it. Are these abstract systems inherent features of reality, necessary constraints on any possible reality, highly effective human descriptive tools, or something else?** Mathematics and logic are **highly effective human descriptive tools** for modeling patterns generated by autaxys, reflecting its intrinsic coherence (Meta-Logic I).[^62] * **4.6.2.2: Does the framework offer an explanation for the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in describing the physical world?** Yes. Autaxys is intrinsically "logos-driven" (ordered, coherent via Meta-Logic I, parsimonious via Meta-Logic III). Mathematics, studying pattern, naturally describes autaxys' manifestations.[^63] * **4.6.2.3: Does the framework *derive* the axioms or fundamental principles of logic and mathematics from its core ontology, or are they assumed? Does it account for or predict limitations in these formal systems (e.g., consistency with Gödel's incompleteness theorems)?** Autaxys suggests their effectiveness stems from reflecting its intrinsic coherence. It acknowledges Gödelian limitations for any formal system fully capturing autaxys, as autaxys (the territory-generator) may transcend complete formal description.[^64] **4.6.3. Computation:** * **4.6.3.1: Does the framework characterize reality, at its most fundamental level, as computational? If so, define the nature of this computation (e.g., classical, quantum, hypercomputational), specify the substrate, and identify its potential limits (e.g., related to the Church-Turing thesis or physical constraints). If not computational, explain why and clarify the relationship between the framework's dynamics and computational processes.** Reality is not fundamentally a pre-programmed digital simulation. However, autaxys' unfolding via its generative engine is a form of **intrinsic, self-generating "cosmic computation."** This is likely more akin to analog or natural computation. Its limits are autaxys' generative potential.[^65] --- **4.7. Epistemology, Validation & Limitations** **4.7.1. Epistemological Framework & Validation Criteria:** * **4.7.1.1: Articulate the underlying epistemology of the framework. How is knowledge of fundamental reality obtained and validated according to its principles?** Autaxys employs an **integrated epistemology**, valuing third-person scientific methods and rigorous first-person contemplative inquiry. Knowledge is the active construction of coherent models of autaxys-generated patterns.[^66] * **4.7.1.2: Define the framework's complete set of criteria for its own validation. Explicitly state the role and relative weight given to:** * **Empirical testability/falsifiability:** Essential; conflicts may also indicate paradigm limits. * **Internal consistency/coherence:** Fundamental. * **Explanatory power/unification:** High weight. * **Ontological parsimony (fundamental principles):** High weight. * **Conceptual elegance/aesthetic appeal:** Heuristic. * **Resolving paradoxes/anomalies:** Key indicator.[^67] * **4.7.1.3: Justify this specific weighting of validation criteria. Address the limits of observation, inference, and the problem of induction within the context of the framework.** Weighting prioritizes generative explanation and coherence. Empirical adequacy is crucial. Parsimony for the base. Limits of observation and inference are acknowledged; knowledge is model-dependent and provisional. Induction is pattern recognition within an autaxically lawful universe.[^68] **4.7.2. Testability & Falsifiability:** * **4.7.2.1: Describe concrete, potentially achievable (even if technologically challenging) empirical tests, observations, or logical deductions that could rigorously challenge and potentially falsify the framework's core, *unique* claims, distinguishing them from predictions shared with established paradigms.** 1. **Internal Incoherence** or **Generative Insufficiency**. 2. **Novel Cosmological Signatures** differing from ΛCDM, tied to autaxic dynamics (e.g., evolving laws). 3. **Anomalous Particle Physics** (e.g., non-SM patterns). 4. **Failure to Resolve Dark Sector Puzzles** coherently without ad-hoc additions.[^69] **4.7.3. Domain of Applicability & Scope:** * **4.7.3.1: Clearly define the intended explanatory scope of the framework.** **Maximal explanatory scope**: from generative origin to physical laws, spacetime, matter, complexity, life, and consciousness.[^70] * **4.7.3.2: Explicitly identify phenomena or questions the framework does *not* purport to explain, either by design (outside its intended scope) or due to recognized current limitations.** Specific contingent historical details (e.g., Earth's evolutionary path); an independent Platonic realm of mathematics; the qualitative "thisness" of specific qualia beyond their emergent nature; precise values of all constants *at this stage*.[^71] * **4.7.3.3: Specify the conditions (e.g., energy scales, complexity levels, specific configurations) under which the framework is expected to provide an accurate and adequate description of reality.** Intended as universally applicable as the fundamental generative principle. Descriptive accuracy for specific phenomena depends on model development. **4.7.4. Self-Identified Limitations & Predicted Breakdown:** * **4.7.4.1: Based on the framework's own internal structure, principles, and assumptions, identify its *inherent* limitations or points of incompleteness.** Formalization challenge; Gödelian limits for any formal description of autaxys; observational limits from within the system.[^72] * **4.7.4.2: Are there questions the framework, even in principle, cannot answer? Are there phenomena it cannot fully describe?** Perhaps "why autaxys itself exists" in an absolute sense if it's the ultimate primitive. May not fully describe a "view from nowhere" completely outside its generative process.[^73] * **4.7.4.3: Does the framework predict specific regimes or conditions under which it would demonstrably fail, become inadequate, or require significant revision?** If a more fundamental generative principle is found; if core meta-logic is empirically violated irreconcilably; if it proves incapable of generating observed universal features.[^74] * **4.7.4.4: Does the framework suggest specific pathways or directions for future research that could lead to its own refinement, extension, or integration into a yet deeper theoretical structure? (This assesses the framework's capacity for self-reflection and its potential role as a progressive research program).** Yes: formal modeling of the generative engine; deriving particle properties (autaxic table); autaxic cosmological models; autaxic basis of life/consciousness; links to complexity science/AI. Autology is an ongoing research program.[^75] **4.7.5. Capacity for Radical Novelty:** * **4.7.5.1: Does the framework predict the existence of phenomena, entities, principles, interactions, or modes of existence that are *qualitatively different* from anything currently conceived or extrapolated within existing scientific or philosophical paradigms? If so, describe their nature and potential (even if highly indirect or subtle) observational, experimental, or logical consequences.** Yes, potentially: novel fundamental patterns (beyond SM particles); scale-dependent or evolving laws with cosmological consequences; new forms of non-local coherence or relational processing; a naturalistic explanation for qualia impacting cognitive science/AI.[^76] **4.7.6. Meta-Criteria & Comparative Advantage:** * **4.7.6.1: Articulate the ultimate meta-criteria, derivable from or consistent with the framework itself, for rationally choosing between fundamentally different, empirically (or otherwise) underdetermined frameworks for reality.** Generative Sufficiency & Explanatory Depth; Internal Coherence; Ontological Parsimony (of fundamental principles); Unifying Power; Progressive Problem-Solving Capacity.[^77] * **4.7.6.2: Based on these criteria and the answers provided throughout the URFE, present a concise argument for why *this* specific framework should be considered preferable to current standard models and prominent alternative fundamental theories. What crucial problems does it solve uniquely, more effectively, or more coherently?** Autaxys is preferable due to its: 1. **Unified Generative Origin:** Derives reality (matter, laws, spacetime, mind) from a single principle, unlike standard models. 2. **Resolution of Foundational Cosmological Problems:** Avoids singularities, offers intrinsic explanations for initial conditions, and reframes "dark sector" puzzles without new substances. 3. **Grounding for Quantum Phenomena:** Provides ontological basis for quantum potentiality, measurement, entanglement, and quantization. 4. **Naturalistic Account of Mind/Consciousness:** Addresses the Hard Problem by grounding qualia in complex autaxic patterns. 5. **Intrinsic Origin of Laws/Constants:** Explains their emergence rather than taking them as givens. 6. **Integrated Epistemology:** Unifies scientific and contemplative inquiry. It offers a more coherent, parsimonious, and generatively complete account than alternatives like String Theory (testability, landscape issues), LQG (recovering classical spacetime, matter integration), or Digital Physics (origin of rules/computer).[^78] --- **Footnotes:** [^1]: [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Section 3; [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 7: Autaxys Defined](7%20Autaxys%20Defined.md). [^2]: [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Sections 1 & 6.3; [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 7: Autaxys Defined](7%20Autaxys%20Defined.md) and [*Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). [^3]: [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Sections 2 & 5. The critique of conventional frameworks is also found in works like *[A Skeptical Journey Through Conventional Reality](Skeptical%20Journey%20through%20Conventional%20Reality.md)*, which is referenced in [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 7: Autaxys Defined](7%20Autaxys%20Defined.md). [^4]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 8: The Generative Engine](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md). [^5]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 8: The Generative Engine](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md); [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Section 3. [^6]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 8: The Generative Engine](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md), Meta-Logic IV. [^7]: Ibid. [^8]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 8: The Generative Engine](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md), Meta-Logic V. [^9]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 9: Information Re-Founded](9%20Information%20Re-Founded.md) and [*Chapter 17: Epistemology Re-Founded*](17%20Epistemology%20Re-Founded.md). [^10]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 8: The Generative Engine](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md), Meta-Logic I. [^11]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 8: The Generative Engine](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md), Dynamic I & Meta-Logic IV; [*Chapter 10: The Architecture of Order*](10%20Architecture%20of%20Order.md). [^12]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 12: Emergence of Spacetime](12%20Emergence%20of%20Spacetime.md); [*Chapter 5: The Contours of Ignorance*](Chapter%205%20The%20Contours%20of%20Ignorance.md). [^13]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 11: The ‘Particle’ as Autaxic Process](11%20Particle%20as%20Autaxic%20Process.md). [^14]: [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Sections 3 & 6.1; [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 7: Autaxys Defined](7%20Autaxys%20Defined.md) and [*Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry*](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md). [^15]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 7: Autaxys Defined](7%20Autaxys%20Defined.md) and [*Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry*](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md). [^16]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 8: The Generative Engine](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md) and [*Chapter 10: The Architecture of Order*](10%20Architecture%20of%20Order.md). [^17]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md) and [*Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). [^18]: [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Section 3; [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 7: Autaxys Defined](7%20Autaxys%20Defined.md). [^19]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 12: Emergence of Spacetime](12%20Emergence%20of%20Spacetime.md). [^20]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 10: The Architecture of Order](10%20Architecture%20of%20Order.md). [^21]: Ibid. [^22]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 12: Emergence of Spacetime](12%20Emergence%20of%20Spacetime.md). [^23]: Ibid. This also connects to ideas in *[Implied Discretization and the Limits of Modeling Continuous Reality](releases/2025/Implied%20Discretization/1%20Introduction.md)*, referenced in [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 3: The Instrumental Veil](3%20Instrumental%20Veil.md). [^24]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 12: Emergence of Spacetime](12%20Emergence%20of%20Spacetime.md). [^25]: Ibid. [^26]: Ibid. [^27]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 13: Mass, Energy, and Equivalence](13%20Mass%20Energy%20Equivalence.md). [^28]: Ibid. [^29]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 11: The ‘Particle’ as Autaxic Process](11%20Particle%20as%20Autaxic%20Process.md). [^30]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 11: The ‘Particle’ as Autaxic Process](11%20Particle%20as%20Autaxic%20Process.md) and [*Chapter 9: Information Re-Founded*](9%20Information%20Re-Founded.md). [^31]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 11: The ‘Particle’ as Autaxic Process](11%20Particle%20as%20Autaxic%20Process.md). [^32]: Ibid. [^33]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md). [^34]: Ibid. [^35]: Ibid. This view is also supported by critiques in [*Modern Physics Metrology*, Chapter 3-9 "Dark Universe"](3-9%20Dark%20Universe.md) and *[Infomatics](8%20Cosmology.md)* (referenced as *[Infomatics](archive/projects/Infomatics/Infomatics.md)* [^36]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md). [^37]: Ibid. [^38]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 10: The Architecture of Order](10%20Architecture%20of%20Order.md) and [*Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry*](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md). [^39]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md). [^40]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 8: The Generative Engine](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md), [*Chapter 10: The Architecture of Order*](10%20Architecture%20of%20Order.md), and [*Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry*](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md). [^41]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 8: The Generative Engine](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md) and [*Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry*](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md). [^42]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md). [^43]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 11: The ‘Particle’ as Autaxic Process](11%20Particle%20as%20Autaxic%20Process.md). [^44]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 11: The ‘Particle’ as Autaxic Process](11%20Particle%20as%20Autaxic%20Process.md) and [*Chapter 12: Emergence of Spacetime*](12%20Emergence%20of%20Spacetime.md). [^45]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 13: Mass, Energy, and Equivalence](13%20Mass%20Energy%20Equivalence.md). [^46]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 11: The ‘Particle’ as Autaxic Process](11%20Particle%20as%20Autaxic%20Process.md). [^47]: Ibid. and [*Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry*](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md). [^48]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 8: The Generative Engine](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md) (Dynamic V) and [*Chapter 10: The Architecture of Order*](10%20Architecture%20of%20Order.md). [^49]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 8: The Generative Engine](8%20The%20Generative%20Engine.md) and [*Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry*](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md). [^50]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 11: The ‘Particle’ as Autaxic Process](11%20Particle%20as%20Autaxic%20Process.md) and [*Chapter 16: Autaxys and the Nature of Mind*](16%20Autaxys%20and%20the%20Nature%20of%20Mind.md). [^51]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 14: Cosmic Tapestry](14%20Cosmic%20Tapestry.md) and [*Chapter 16: Autaxys and the Nature of Mind*](16%20Autaxys%20and%20the%20Nature%20of%20Mind.md). [^52]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 16: Autaxys and the Nature of Mind*](16%20Autaxys%20and%20the%20Nature%20of%20Mind.md). [^53]: Ibid. This also draws on ideas from *[A Skeptical Journey Through Conventional Reality](Skeptical%20Journey%20through%20Conventional%20Reality.md)*, as referenced in Chapter 16's notes. [^54]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 16: Autaxys and the Nature of Mind*](16%20Autaxys%20and%20the%20Nature%20of%20Mind.md) and [*Chapter 9: Information Re-Founded*](9%20Information%20Re-Founded.md). [^55]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 16: Autaxys and the Nature of Mind*](16%20Autaxys%20and%20the%20Nature%20of%20Mind.md). [^56]: Ibid. [^57]: Ibid. [^58]: Ibid. This also connects to ideas in [*Philosophy of Science*, Chapter 10: "Who is Following the Path?"](10%20Who%20is%20Following%20the%20Path.md) [^59]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 16: Autaxys and the Nature of Mind*](16%20Autaxys%20and%20the%20Nature%20of%20Mind.md) and [*Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). The idea of meaning-making also connects to *[Strange Loop of Being](Strange%20Loop%20of%20Being.md)*, referenced in Chapter 17's notes. [^60]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 9: Information Re-Founded](9%20Information%20Re-Founded.md); [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Sections 3 & 5.1. [^61]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 9: Information Re-Founded](9%20Information%20Re-Founded.md). [^62]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 10: The Architecture of Order](10%20Architecture%20of%20Order.md) and [*Chapter 17: Epistemology Re-Founded*](17%20Epistemology%20Re-Founded.md). This also relates to *[Geometric Physics](Geometric%20Physics.md)* and *[The “Mathematical Tricks” Postulate](Mathematical%20Tricks%20Postulate.md)*, referenced in Chapter 17's notes. [^63]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 10: The Architecture of Order](10%20Architecture%20of%20Order.md). [^64]: [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Section 3; [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 7: Autaxys Defined](7%20Autaxys%20Defined.md) and [*Chapter 17: Epistemology Re-Founded*](17%20Epistemology%20Re-Founded.md). This also connects to [*Philosophy of Science*, "What Can We Know?"](What%20Can%20We%20Know?.md) [^65]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 9: Information Re-Founded](9%20Information%20Re-Founded.md) and [*Chapter 17: Epistemology Re-Founded*](17%20Epistemology%20Re-Founded.md). [^66]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 17: Epistemology Re-Founded](17%20Epistemology%20Re-Founded.md). This chapter references *[The N=1 Problem](N=1%20Problem.md)* and *[Contemplative Science and the Nature of Reality](1%20Converging%20Quests.md)*. [^67]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 15: Autology and the Evolution of Science](15%20Autology%20and%20the%20Evolution%20of%20Science.md) and [*Chapter 17: Epistemology Re-Founded*](17%20Epistemology%20Re-Founded.md); [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Section 6.2. [^68]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 17: Epistemology Re-Founded](17%20Epistemology%20Re-Founded.md) and [*Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). The limits of observation are discussed in Chapters 1-5. [^69]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 15: Autology and the Evolution of Science](15%20Autology%20and%20the%20Evolution%20of%20Science.md) and [*Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). The Î₁ example is discussed in Chapter 15, referencing *[Lineage of Information-Based Physics](Lineage%20of%20Information-Based%20Physics.md)*. [^70]: [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Section 1; [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). [^71]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). [^72]: [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Sections 3 & 6.2; [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 17: Epistemology Re-Founded](17%20Epistemology%20Re-Founded.md) and [*Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). [^73]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). [^74]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 15: Autology and the Evolution of Science](15%20Autology%20and%20the%20Evolution%20of%20Science.md). [^75]: [*Autaxys and Autology: Definition, Rationale, and Implications*](AUTX_D002_Draft_v1.2.md), Section 6.2; [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). [^76]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 11: The ‘Particle’ as Autaxic Process](11%20Particle%20as%20Autaxic%20Process.md), [*Chapter 10: The Architecture of Order*](10%20Architecture%20of%20Order.md), [*Chapter 16: Autaxys and the Nature of Mind*](16%20Autaxys%20and%20the%20Nature%20of%20Mind.md), and [*Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). [^77]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 15: Autology and the Evolution of Science](15%20Autology%20and%20the%20Evolution%20of%20Science.md) and [*Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md). [^78]: [*A New Way of Seeing*, Chapter 18: The Autaxic Synthesis*](18%20Autaxic%20Synthesis.md).