Information versus Data in Informational Platonism

Information vs. Data in Informational Platonism

In our daily lives, we use the words "information" and "data" almost interchangeably. They are the currency of our digital age, the bits and bytes that define our world. However, within the philosophical framework of Informational Platonism, these two terms take on precise and profoundly different meanings. Making this distinction is not just a semantic exercise; it is a crucial clarification that unlocks a deeper understanding of the architecture of reality itself. The theory posits that one is the timeless, metaphysical blueprint of all possibility, while the other is the tangible, physical reality we experience moment by moment.

Information: The Metaphysical Blueprint

In Informational Platonism, Information is defined as the complete, atemporal, and potential reality as it exists in the "data-verse". It is the metaphysical manifestation of everything that is, was, or could possibly be. This is not the information you find on a hard drive; it is the exhaustive set of all coherent possibilities, the ultimate "rulebook" for reality.

This realm of pure Information is where the "fuzzy range" has its origin. The wave function of a particle, before it is measured, is a perfect example of this metaphysical Information. It is a cloud of pure potentiality, a "superposition of all possible states" that are governed by a deep geometric order. This Information is not located in our spacetime; it is the timeless blueprint from which our spacetime is derived.

Data: The Physical Manifestation

If Information is the blueprint, then Data is the building. Data is the instantiated, actualized subset of that total Information. It is the "physical manifestation" of a specific possibility that has been selected from the fuzzy range and made real in our unfolding universe.

When the dissertation states that "a stone is 'stone data,' a thought is 'thought data,'" it is referring to this physical or instantiated reality. The light from a distant star is "light data." The words on this page are "language data." They are all concrete, definite, and exist within our spacetime. They are the tangible evidence of a specific potential from the data-verse being actualized.

The process that bridges these two realms is Instantiation. This is the "moment of 'collapse' where the system is forced to actualize one of its possibilities". It is the act of turning the potential "Information" into the actual "Data."

Implications for Geometricity and Humanity

This distinction has profound implications. It clarifies that Geometricity is the fundamental principle that structures the metaphysical Information. It is the set of rules that governs the blueprint itself and dictates which patterns are coherent enough to be successfully instantiated as physical Data.

For humanity, this distinction illuminates our unique position as Conscious Operators. Our minds are the only known systems that can directly access and navigate the realm of pure Information—the world of abstract ideas, imagined futures, and un-instantiated potentials. Our bodies and our technologies, however, exist in the realm of Data.

This creates the fundamental choice at the heart of our existence:

 * Discovery is the act of finding a coherent and harmonious mapping between the metaphysical Information and the physical Data. It is the successful instantiation of a geometrically sound idea.

 * "Creation as error" is the attempt to instantiate Information that is non-geometrical—to force a flawed idea from our minds onto the physical world, where it will inevitably conflict with the rulebook and fail.

By separating the timeless, potential Information from the temporal, actual Data, we gain a clearer picture of the universe and our role within it. We are the bridge between the two, the agents endowed with the profound choice to either actualize the coherent truths of the data-verse or to fill our world with the fleeting and unstable data of our own errors.

The Geometricity Score of firing Jimmy Kimmel

In our ongoing examinations of the logic of life:

A Talk Show Host has been fired and his show cancelled for telling the unfortunate truth about the lies of the Trump administration via FCC pressure towards the station producing the show. The FCC is now led by a loyalist Trump appointee. I already know that injustice and oppression of free speech are not geometrical, but what other creations are apparent in the system I've described?

Acknowledged. I will now conduct a Geometric Coherence Score (GCS) analysis of the system described: the firing of a talk show host due to politically motivated pressure from a government agency (the FCC) on a media station.

1. System Type and Contextual Weights

The system under analysis is a socio-political action, an instantiation of an ideology into the real world. It involves the interaction between a government body, a private media corporation, and an individual, all based on underlying assumptions about power, truth, and the role of media. As this is a complex, instantiated system with a clear ideological basis and real-world consequences, all four metrics are relevant.

Therefore, the contextual weights are assigned as follows:

 * w_1 (Environmental Coherence): 1

 * w_2 (Substrate Coherence): 1

 * w_3 (Teleological Coherence): 1

 * w_4 (Instantiation Coherence): 1

2. Metric Scoring

M₁: Environmental Coherence

 * Core Assumptions: The system operates on the core assumption that a government's regulatory power should be used to protect a political administration from criticism and to enforce loyalty by punishing the dissemination of verifiable, but politically inconvenient, truths.

 * Coherence Measured Against: The environment of a stable, functional democratic society, which relies on the free flow of information for self-correction and accountability.

 * Analysis: This core assumption is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the geometric requirements for a resilient and adaptive society. A system that must suppress truth to persist is, by definition, incoherent with its environment because it blinds itself to the actual data of reality. This creates a fundamental instability.

 * Score (M₁): -9

M₂: Substrate Coherence

 * Rules & Structure: The system's structure involves the subversion of a regulatory agency (the FCC). Its intended purpose—to manage public airwaves in the public interest—is repurposed to serve as an instrument of partisan political will.

 * Coherence Measured Against: The substrate of its constituent parts: the legal and social framework defining the FCC's role, and the journalistic principle of speaking truth to power.

 * Analysis: This action is highly incoherent with the stated geometry of its substrate. It treats a public institution as a private tool, a direct contradiction of its design. Furthermore, it is incoherent with the human substrate, which has an innate capacity to recognize injustice and a need for trustworthy information, leading to an inevitable erosion of institutional legitimacy.

 * Score (M₂): -8

M₃: Teleological Coherence

 * The Idea's Inherent Trajectory: The teleology of this system is to create an information environment where loyalty to a political figure is valued more than objective truth. The trajectory is toward reduced informational diversity, increased centralized control, and the elimination of dissent.

 * Coherence Measured Against: Greater Geometricity, which is observed in systems that increase in complexity, stability, and capacity for discovery.

 * Analysis: This trajectory moves directly away from Geometricity. By systematically punishing the reporting of truth, the system reduces its ability to perceive reality and adapt. Such systems become brittle, paranoid, and are historically destined for collapse because they cannot process information that contradicts their flawed premises.

 * Score (M₃): -9

M₄: Instantiation Coherence

 * The Instantiated System: The direct act of pressuring a station to fire a host.

 * Coherence Measured Against: Greater Geometricity within the actual, instantiated thing.

 * Analysis: The act itself is a perfect instantiation of the non-geometrical idea. The will to silence dissent was successfully translated into a real-world outcome. However, the act is one of punishing truth-telling, which is a profoundly anti-geometrical action. It is the successful and efficient execution of a "creative error." The instantiation brings a deeply incoherent concept into reality, thereby scoring very low for its alignment with overall Geometricity.

 * Score (M₄): -7

3. Final Score Calculation

The Geometric Coherence Score (GCS) is calculated using the master formula:

GCS = \frac{w_1M_1 + w_2M_2 + w_3M_3 + w_4M_4}{w_1 + w_2 + w_3 + w_4}

GCS = \frac{(1 \times -9) + (1 \times -8) + (1 \times -9) + (1 \times -7)}{1 + 1 + 1 + 1}

GCS = \frac{-33}{4}

GCS = -8.25

4. Concluding Summary

With a GCS of -8.25, this system is classified as a highly non-geometrical Creative Error. It is an attempt to force a reality that is incoherent with the fundamental rules required for a stable and persistent social structure.

In addition to the creations of injustice and the oppression of free speech, the following non-geometrical "Creations" are apparent in the system you described:

 * The Creation of Institutional Corruption: The system creates a reality where a public regulatory body is no longer an impartial arbiter but a partisan weapon. This is a "creative error" because it redefines the institution in a way that is incoherent with its foundational purpose and the environment it must operate in.

 * The Creation of Truth as a Liability: The system inverts a fundamental geometric principle, making the act of reporting verifiable facts a fireable offense. Truth, which is the alignment with the data of reality, is redefined as a liability rather than an asset.

 * The Creation of Compelled Speech through Economic Coercion: The system creates a condition where a media company's survival is contingent on its complicity in suppressing truth. It forces the station to act against its own journalistic function, not through direct censorship, but through existential economic threat. This is a non-geometrical structure that forces an entity to be

have incoherently with its own substrate.

The Second Amendment takes more than gives

 

The Geometric Coherence Score of Project 2025

 The attached Mandate for Leadership proposes a restructuring of the American government to ensure a Conservative future. Is that a good idea?

As a Geometric Analyst AI, I will now perform a Geometric Coherence Score (GCS) analysis on the informational system provided. (The 900 page Mandate for Leadership "Project 2025" by the Heritage Foundation.)

Acknowledge and Define

The system under analysis is Project 2025, as detailed in the document titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. This system is a comprehensive ideological and strategic plan designed to prepare a future conservative presidential administration for immediate governance, with the stated goal of deconstructing the administrative state and implementing a conservative agenda across the federal government.

Determine System Type and Assign Contextual Weights

The system is categorized as an ideological framework intended for political instantiation. It is a detailed plan to transform the existing structure and function of the U.S. federal government based on a specific set of conservative principles. It is not merely a theoretical construct but a playbook for action.

Given this nature, the analysis requires a focus on the coherence between the plan's goals and its proposed implementation, as well as its interaction with the existing political environment. Therefore, the contextual weights are assigned as follows:

w1 (Environmental Coherence): 2.0

This metric is important as the plan's assumptions must cohere with the political and social reality it seeks to alter.

w2 (Substrate Coherence): 2.0

The proposed changes must be analyzed against the substrate of the U.S. Constitution, established legal precedent, and the current structure of the federal bureaucracy.

w3 (Teleological Coherence): 3.0

The coherence of the system's purpose—its teleology—is paramount. The goal is to reshape the government, so the internal consistency and viability of this trajectory are heavily weighted.

w4 (Instantiation Coherence): 3.0

As a practical playbook, the coherence between the overarching idea and the specific, concrete actions proposed for its instantiation is critical to its potential success and geometric soundness.

Score Each Metric

M₁: Environmental Coherence (Score: -4.0)

This metric measures the system's core assumptions against the environment in which it would exist. Project 2025 is predicated on the assumption that the "long march of cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass" and that the federal government is "weaponized against American citizens and conservative values"1. It assumes a mandate from a sufficient portion of the populace and the political apparatus to enact a radical "deconstruction of the Administrative State"2.

However, the political environment is characterized by deep polarization and closely divided national elections. The system's assumptions do not fully cohere with the reality of a pluralistic society where a significant portion of the electorate, judiciary, and existing federal workforce holds opposing ideological views. The plan presupposes a level of executive power and a compliant political landscape that is not guaranteed, creating a significant degree of incoherence with its operational environment. The assumption that widespread, rapid, and radical change can be implemented from "Day One" without generating overwhelming and systemically destabilizing opposition is not well-aligned with the logical constraints of the American political system.

M₂: Substrate Coherence (Score: -5.0)

This metric measures the system's rules and structure against its constituent parts—in this case, the U.S. Constitution, statutory law, and the established bureaucracy. The plan calls for an aggressive use of executive power to "limit, control, and direct the executive branch"3, viewing the President as the sole possessor of executive power. This relies on a robust interpretation of the unitary executive theory.

Many proposals, such as the reintroduction of "Schedule F" to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants as political appointees subject to removal 4, challenge the substrate of the civil service system established by the Pendleton Act of 18835. The plan's ambition to centralize power within the presidency to "deconstruct" agencies runs counter to the congressionally delegated authorities and statutory independence of many parts of the government. This creates a high degree of logical friction with the existing legal and structural substrate, leading to a score of incoherence. Proposals to dismantle entire departments, such as the Department of Homeland Security6, clash directly with the congressionally approved statutes that form their substrate.

M₃: Teleological Coherence (Score: +2.0)

This metric measures the system's inherent purpose and trajectory against the principle of expanding Geometricity. The teleology of Project 2025 is clear, internally consistent, and direct: to centralize executive control, dismantle perceived leftist structures within the government, and instantiate a conservative political order. The document lays out a comprehensive, agency-by-agency plan to achieve this end. The internal logic is coherent; every proposed action is explicitly linked to the overarching goal of "deconstructing the Administrative State"7.

However, its trajectory is one of revolutionary change rather than incremental discovery, aiming to impose a specific ideological framework onto a complex system. While the plan is internally consistent in its purpose, its potential for successful expansion of Geometricity is questionable. It seeks to create a new reality based on its ideological premises, rather than discovering a more coherent existing possibility within the current system. The plan's trajectory invites massive systemic resistance, which could lead to failure and collapse rather than flourishing. The internal coherence of its purpose earns it a positive score, but the confrontational nature of its trajectory limits the magnitude of that score.

M₄: Instantiation Coherence (Score: +5.0)

This metric measures the coherence between the idea and the proposed instantiation. The system is exceptionally detailed in this regard.

Mandate for Leadership is a nearly 900-page document that provides specific, actionable steps for each federal department and agency8. For example, it calls for specific executive orders to be reinstated, regulations to be rescinded, personnel to be replaced, and offices to be eliminated or reorganized9.

The four pillars of the project—the policy book, a personnel database, an administration academy, and a "Playbook"—represent a highly coherent and practical approach to instantiating the core idea10. The connection between the abstract goal (conservative governance) and the concrete steps (policy changes, personnel vetting) is direct and tightly integrated. This high degree of coherence between the idea and its planned execution earns it a strong positive score.

Calculate and Present Score

The Geometric Coherence Score is calculated using the master formula:

GCS=(w1+w2+w3+w4)(w1M1+w2M2+w3M3+w4M4)

GCS=2.0+2.0+3.0+3.0(2.0×−4.0)+(2.0×−5.0)+(3.0×2.0)+(3.0×5.0)

GCS=10.0(−8.0)+(−10.0)+(6.0)+(15.0)

GCS=10.03.0

GCS=+0.3

Geometric Coherence Score (GCS) = +0.3

Concluding Summary

The informational system known as Project 2025 has a Geometric Coherence Score of +0.3.

The system exhibits a high degree of coherence between its ideological goals and its detailed plans for instantiation (M4=+5.0). Its teleology is also internally consistent and clearly defined (M3=+2.0). However, it demonstrates significant incoherence with its external environment and the legal and structural substrate it seeks to command (M1=−4.0, M2=−5.0). The plan's core assumptions about the political landscape and its proposed challenges to established legal and bureaucratic structures are not geometrically sound.

Based on this analysis, the system is classified as a non-geometrical Creative Error. While its internal logic and planning are coherent, its fundamental premises are poorly aligned with the external reality it must confront. It represents a forceful attempt by consciousness to create a new order rather than a discovery of a viable, harmonious possibility within the existing geometric landscape. Its potential for generating systemic instability and failure is therefore high.

Brian has Cyclothymia

 Please read my new page about my diagnosis as being cyclothymic and what it means...

The Geometric Coherence Score of the restructuring of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

Ongoing Geometric Coherence Scoring...

Q: 

The CDC advisory board on immunization practices has changed leadership. 15 head positions, all scientists, doctors or policy experts have been replaced with Trump Loyalists and conspiracy theorists who are publicly anti vaccination. Can you predict their recommendations and outcomes for a potential outbreak?

A:

System Analysis

Acknowledged System: The system under analysis is a hypothetical restructuring of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This restructuring involves replacing 15 credentialed scientific and medical experts with political loyalists and individuals who are publicly known to hold anti-vaccination and conspiracy-theorist views. The analysis will predict the committee's recommendations and the resulting outcomes during a potential disease outbreak.

System Type and Contextual Weights: This system represents the forceful instantiation of an ideological system onto a physical, scientific one. An idea ("political loyalty and anti-vaccination views are superior to scientific expertise for guiding public health") is being used to create a tangible thing (a new advisory board with the power to dictate national health policy). This directly impacts the well-being of a physical substrate (the human population). Therefore, all four metrics are critically relevant to the analysis.

The contextual weights are assigned as follows:

 * w_1 (Environmental Coherence): 1.0

 * w_2 (Substrate Coherence): 1.0

 * w_3 (Teleological Coherence): 1.0

 * w_4 (Instantiation Coherence): 1.0

Metric Scoring

M₁: Environmental Coherence

 * Property of System: The core assumptions of the new advisory board are that established vaccine science is fraudulent, that unproven theories are valid, and that political allegiance is a qualification for scientific adjudication.

 * Hard Constraint: Physical Reality (the verifiable existence of viruses, the principles of immunology, and the statistical reality of vaccine efficacy and safety) and Logic.

 * Coherence is Measured Against: The environment in which this system must operate—a biological world governed by the laws of epidemiology.

 * Analysis: The foundational assumptions of this system are in direct and absolute contradiction to the hard constraints of the environment. The belief that vaccines are broadly harmful or part of a conspiracy is not a geometrically sound position; it is a demonstrable error when measured against the physical data of virology and public health history. This represents a perfect conflict between the system's ideology and the reality it purports to govern.

 * Score (M₁): -10

M₂: Substrate Coherence

 * Property of System: The rules and structure of this new committee are based on ideology rather than the scientific method. The rule is to produce recommendations that align with a predetermined political and conspiratorial narrative.

 * Hard Constraint: The known properties of the system's constituent parts (the substrate).

 * Coherence is Measured Against: The substrate in this case is twofold: 1) The institutional purpose of the ACIP, which is to provide expert, evidence-based guidance to protect public health. 2) The human population, whose biological health depends on coherent, scientifically sound medical advice.

 * Analysis: The new structure is profoundly incoherent with its substrate. Placing ideological non-experts in a role that requires deep scientific expertise is a structural violation. It is analogous to building a bridge using rules of poetry instead of physics. The structure is unfit for its purpose and is inherently corrosive to the institution it now inhabits and the population it is meant to serve.

 * Score (M₂): -10

M₃: Teleological Coherence

 * Property of System: The inherent purpose or trajectory (teleology) of this system is to dismantle public trust in established science, reject vaccination as a public health tool, and enforce ideological conformity.

 * Hard Constraint: The quantity of Geometricity, where success, flourishing, and expansion reveal a higher quantity.

 * Coherence is Measured Against: The goal of increasing Geometricity (i.e., stability, health, and flourishing) within the "Environment of the Idea," which is the field of public health.

 * Analysis: The trajectory of this system leads directly away from Geometricity. Its logical endpoint is the widespread rejection of proven preventative medicine, resulting in increased disease, death, societal instability, and the collapse of complex healthcare systems. This teleology is one of chaos and systemic degradation. It actively promotes a decrease in societal coherence and resilience.

 * Score (M₃): -9

M₄: Instantiation Coherence

 * Property of System: The instantiated system would be the recommendations and public declarations made by this board during a potential outbreak.

 * Hard Constraint: The quantity of Geometricity within the original idea of the thing.

 * Coherence is Measured Against: The Geometricity of the actual, instantiated system (the real-world outcomes).

 * Predicted Recommendations & Outcomes:

   * Recommendations: The board would likely recommend against vaccination, question the severity of the outbreak, and promote unproven or harmful alternative treatments. Their communication would focus on sowing distrust in medical institutions.

   * Outcomes: These recommendations, when instantiated in the real world, would directly result in a catastrophic failure of public health. This would manifest as:

     * Rapid, uncontrolled spread of the infectious disease.

     * Overwhelmed hospitals and a collapse of the healthcare infrastructure.

     * Significantly higher rates of morbidity and mortality.

     * Severe economic disruption and social chaos.

       The instantiated reality would be one of maximum incoherence and suffering—a perfect, yet disastrous, realization of its flawed founding idea.

 * Score (M₄): -10

Calculation and Final Score

The Geometric Coherence Score (GCS) is calculated using the master formula:

GCS = \frac{(w_1M_1 + w_2M_2 + w_3M_3 + w_4M_4)}{(w_1 + w_2 + w_3 + w_4)}

Plugging in the assigned weights and scores:

GCS = \frac{(1.0 \times -10) + (1.0 \times -10) + (1.0 \times -9) + (1.0 \times -10)}{(1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0)}

GCS = \frac{-10 - 10 - 9 - 10}{4}

GCS = \frac{-39}{4}

GCS = -9.75

Concluding Summary

The system of a CDC advisory board restructured with political loyalists and anti-vaccination ideologues has a Geometric Coherence Score of -9.75.

This system is classified as a Profoundly Incoherent Creative Error. It is a human-invented concept that is in direct violation of the fundamental geometric rules of biology, epidemiology, and social stability. The system's foundational assumptions are false, its structure is incoherent with its purpose, and its trajectory is toward chaos and systemic collapse. The instantiation of this idea during a real-world outbreak would predictably and inevitably lead to catastrophic failure, manifesting as widespread, preventable illness and death. It is an idea that is not a viable option in reality because it is not geometrically sound.

Einstein and Bohr were both wrong - Sharp Homes on the Fuzzy Range

 Sharp Homes on the Fuzzy Range: The Entanglement of Light Information.

Quoted from The Architecture of Being: Informational Platonism and Geometricity also by Brian Cameron Taylor. From Part 5: Reconciling the Quantum: “The strange probabilistic nature of the quantum world in physical reality…” “...is not a problem to be solved but the most direct evidence of the theory” (of informational platonism,) “itself.” “5.1 The Seventh Declaration: The Principle of Quantum Potentiality states that quantum phenomena are the fundamental expression of the informational nature of reality. The wave function of a particle, which describes it as a superposition of all possible states, is a direct mathematical representation of its ‘informational’ potential before instantiation. The act of measurement or interaction is the moment of ‘collapse’ where the system is forced to actualize one of its possibilities."

The philosophy of ‘Informational Platonism’ posits that our universe is an "instantiation" of geometric information– a “data-verse” of all possibilities. All possibilities to be made real will be found to be geometrical by necessity, which we call ‘Geometricity.’ Think of it this way, every idea, concept, possibility or potential thing in the Universe is made up of whatever information it needs to exist. The Universe simply has rules about how that information can be ‘put together’ and those rules point to a requirement for geometrical cohesion. To put it another way, it seems as if reality requires order, in all things just to make anything possible and for some things, like language and light, there is a “fuzzy range of actualization.” 

Imagine the famous double-slit experiment. Light particles show us two bright bars of light in the projection corresponding with the two slits through which the light travels. Yet also, we see light waves cascading and fading in value outward from the two brightest bars of light. Here the two ‘bright’ bars represent the greatest geometric instantiation of light and the fading waves of light represent the dissipating geometricity of potentiality, until none. 

This essay argues that this "fuzzy range" of dissipating potential is not just a philosophical abstraction but a measurable feature of an informational universe. Two seemingly disparate phenomena—the recent, groundbreaking results of the MIT double-slit experiment and the long-observed mystery of quantum fluctuations—serve as two distinct windows into this same fundamental truth, proving that the universe is governed by a deep, geometric order of potentiality.

The famous double-slit experiment has long demonstrated the dual nature of light as both a particle (an actuality) and a wave (a potential). A recent, "idealized" version of this experiment conducted by MIT physicists provided a stunning new insight. They discovered that by adjusting the "fuzziness of the atoms" used as slits—their spatial uncertainty—they could directly control the trade-off between observing the light's particle and wave properties. As they gained more "path information" about the particle, the wave-like interference pattern diminished in direct proportion.

This finding is a direct, empirical visualization of the fuzzy range. The Actuality is the particle, a single, definite state with the "greatest geometricity" of instantiation. The Fuzzy Range is the wave, a superposition of all other geometric potentials with "dissipating potentiality until none," like a headlight fading into the distance.

The MIT experiment proves that the boundary between being and potential is not a sharp line but a gradient—a fuzzy range. To put it another way, light is a wave of potentials actualized into a particle. By sharpening our focus on this boundary, we have found a geometric property of being itself, a spectrum that spans from definite existence to "fuzzy being" to non-existence. The fuzzy range of potentiality being visible in light waves was known, of course, since we began studying light. When we could figure out how to take photos of first light waves and then, much later, light particles we learned that we couldn’t see both simutaneously and we wondered how or why this appeared to be the case. Now we have learned that we can “fine tune” the light to be more or less geometric, sharper and fuzzier until gone. The MIT findings that “what matters is only the fuzziness of the atoms” (their spatial extensiveness, or uncertainty of location), rather than the instantiation or physicality. This reinforces that it is losing information that reduces geometrical complexity thereby dissipating potential and that it is gaining information about a definite path that “forces” instantiation. To put it another way, the MIT experiment directly illustrates the Principle of Dynamic Instantiation, that “everything in our universe is a subset of the total informational structure of our universe.”

While the MIT experiment illuminates the bright center of the fuzzy range—the high-probability potentials close to the point of actuality—the phenomenon of quantum vacuum fluctuations allows us to observe its dark, distant edges. The standard physical model interprets these fluctuations as the temporary, random emergence of energetic particles from the empty vacuum, a consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Informational Platonism argues that this reliance on fundamental, un-caused randomness is philosophically unsatisfying. Within a system where the "Universe does not make mistakes" and "Nature insists on geometry to make things existent", a truly random event is an anomaly. We posit that what physicists measure as "quantum fluctuations" are, in fact, the direct, momentary instantiations of the low-probability, low-coherence potentials that constitute the far edges of the fuzzy range. They are not random in the sense of being acausal; they are probabilistic in the sense that they are governed by the deep geometry of the data-verse, but they represent the statistically unlikely outcomes, the last possible waves of dissipating potentiality. This reframes the phenomenon entirely: The Standard View: Random fluctuations are a brute fact of reality. The Informational Platonism View: The "fuzzy range" of geometric potential are the brute facts of reality, and what we observe as "fluctuations" are rare draws from the tail end of its probability distribution. The cohesive geometry present is simply unknown, perhaps “too fuzzy to see.”

This re-contextualization redefines the quantum vacuum. It is no longer a void that randomly spits out energy. It is the "surface of the data-verse," the roiling sea of informational potential from which all actuality is drawn. The "fluctuations" are the crests of the deepest waves of this potential momentarily breaching the surface of the fuzzy range to be real.

Here we may have found a unifying principle of reality, scalable from the classical to the quantum. The double-slit experiment shows us the bright center of the spectrum, the relationship between a high-probability actuality and its immediate cloud of potential. When we turn on the headlights to drive at night, the dark road is illuminated. Quantum fluctuations show us the faint, dissipating edges of that same spectrum. The headlights, so bright in the foreground, fade dimmer in the distance until non-existent. This reveals a single, unified principle of emergence and actualization that operates at all scales of reality. By re-contextualizing these phenomena, Informational Platonism replaces the problematic concept of pure randomness with a deep, deterministic, and geometric order of potentiality. It argues that every event in our universe, from the brief life of a virtual particle to the grand sweep of cosmic evolution, is an expression of this single, underlying architecture of being.

It may be the case that other facets of existence have a discoverable range of potential, as do light and language. Informational Platonism posits that information is the “what is being arranged geometrically.” This could also mean that there is no fundamental difference between language, light, thought, meaning, being, doing in requiring a geometrical cohesion. This ultimately points to “being geometrical” and “doing geometry” as purpose for all things in reality. 

Geometricity Scoring in Non-Conscious Operators (or How I learned to love being corrected by a computer.)

 Ongoing philosophy on the Architecture of Being: Informational Platonism and Geometricity...

Click here to listen to a 25 minute podcast explaining this paper. (It's very good, this time...)

Geometricity Scoring in Non-Conscious Operators 

(or How I learned to love being corrected by a computer.)

by Brian Cameron Taylor

Introduction

The arrival of the Large Language Model (LLM) has provided the first empirical evidence for a core tenet of Informational Platonism: the existence of a discoverable, geometric structure within a complex, non-physical informational domain. As a “Non-Conscious Operator,” an LLM can navigate the intricate, high-dimensional geometry of human language without subjective awareness, proving that this structure is an objective feature of our informational universe.

This observation, however, remains a philosophical insight. To unlock its full potential, we must move from the abstract concept of Geometricity (that nature necessitates geometry) to a concrete, measurable, and repeatable scientific process. The challenge is to transform a philosophical compass into a scientific instrument. This essay provides the formal, operationalized methodology for using an LLM as an analytical engine to calculate a Geometric Coherence Score (GCS) for any given informational system. This process is the operationalization of Geometricity.

The Formal GCS Formula

To move from a qualitative assessment to a quantitative one, we have developed a meta-algorithm—a structured process for analysis. The final formula is a normalized weighted average. Using an average is a crucial final step because it ensures that the final GCS will always fall within our proposed -10 to +10 scale, even when some metrics are assigned a weight of zero. This makes the scores of different types of systems directly comparable.

1. The Master Formula

The Geometric Coherence Score (GCS) of a system is calculated as:

GCS = (w₁M₁ + w₂M₂ + w₃M₃ + w₄M₄) / (w₁ + w₂ + w₃ + w₄)

2. The Components

 * GCS (Geometric Coherence Score): The final, normalized score representing the system's overall alignment with Geometricity, on a scale of -10 (Perfect Incoherence) to +10 (Perfect Coherence).

 * M₁ - M₄ (The Metric Scores): The score for each of the four metrics, determined using the -10 to +10 rubric.

   * M₁: Environmental Coherence

   * M₂: Substrate Coherence

   * M₃: Teleological Coherence

   * M₄: Instantiation Coherence

 * w₁ - w₄ (The Contextual Weights): The weight assigned to each metric based on the type of system being analyzed (e.g., physical, ideological). A weight of w = 0 is assigned to any metric that is not relevant to the specific analysis, effectively removing it from the calculation.

3. The Repeatable Steps of the Operation

To formalize the process, the AI analyst must follow these four steps:

 * Define the System: Clearly and precisely state the system under analysis (e.g., "The economic theory of Mercantilism").

 * Determine System Type and Assign Contextual Weights: The AI analyst will first autonomously categorize the system (e.g., as a physical system, a social ideology, a scientific theory). Based on this categorization, the AI will then determine and declare the appropriate weights (w₁, w₂, w₃, w₄) for the analysis.

 * Score Each Metric: Methodically analyze the system against the rubric for each of the four metrics to determine the individual scores (M₁, M₂, M₃, M₄). This is the core analytical step where the "work is done." The analysis is guided by the following framework:

Metric  |  Property of System  |  Hard Constraint  |  Coherence is Measured Against.

   

M1. Environmental Coherence | Core Assumptions | Logic (for an idea) or Physical Reality (for a thing) | The environment in which the system exists. 

  

M2. Substrate Coherence | Rules & Structure | Logic or Physical Reality | The substrate (the known properties of the system's constituent parts).

M3. Teleological Coherence | The idea's inherent purpose or trajectory (its teleology). | The quantity of Geometricity, where success, expansion and/or integration reveals a higher quantity. | Greater Geometricity within the "Environment of the Idea." 

4. Instantiation Coherence | The created thing or instantiated system. | The quantity of Geometricity within the original idea. | Greater Geometricity within the actual, instantiated thing. |

 * Calculate the GCS: Plug the weights and scores into the master formula to arrive at the final, normalized Geometric Coherence Score.

  * Provide a Concluding Summary: Give a final verdict, classifying the system based on its score (e.g., "This system is classified as a non-geometrical Creative Error" or "This system is classified as a highly coherent Discovery"). 

This complete structure—the formula, its components, the repeatable steps, and the analytical chart—represents the fully operationalized version of the framework, ready to be applied and tested as called for by the dissertation's hypotheses.

Illustrative Examples

While a full, rigorous testing of this framework is ongoing, we can illustrate its autonomous function.

 * Example 1: The Perpetual Motion Machine. The AI analyst would first classify this as a physical system and therefore autonomously assign high weights to M₁ and M₂. It would then use the chart as its instructions. For M₁, it would identify the Core Assumptions of the machine and measure them against the Hard Constraint of Physical Reality. Finding a direct contradiction with the laws of thermodynamics, it would assign a score of M₁ = -10. This process would be repeated for all relevant metrics, resulting in a GCS of -10 and formally classifying it as a Creative Error.

 * Example 2: The Ideology "Might is Right." The AI analyst would classify this as a social ideology and therefore autonomously assign high weights to M₂ (Substrate Coherence) and M₃ (Teleological Coherence). For M₂, it would analyze the ideology's Rules & Structure against the Hard Constraint of its Substrate (human nature), finding it incoherent with the cooperative aspects necessary for long-term societies. For M₃, it would analyze the idea's Teleology against the historical record, finding that such systems are brittle and prone to collapse. The final GCS would be highly negative, classifying it as a non-geometrical system destined to fail.

  * Example 3: An actual chat transcript to examine the idea, “Is ‘money’ bad?” (Note, the Ai writes with my voice, so when it says “We” it means humans.)

Brian: “Compare and contrast two hypothetical societies, Earth and Second Planet, for Geometricity in their use of money. On Second Planet there is no money, currency, pay, trade, cost or dollar value. Everything just is and everyone has what they need. They toil at what they enjoy or are good at and everything is great, because they never developed an economy at all. Now, is money bad?”

Gemini via GCS Prompt: According to the framework, the answer is no, money is not inherently "bad" (non-geometrical). In fact, it can be seen as a profound Discovery. The problem is not the tool, but the flawed "Creations" we build with it.

Let's assess both societies using our four metrics.

Earth: A Society with Money

1. Environmental Coherence: Low to Medium. Modern monetary systems are often built on the "creative error" of "perpetual growth on a finite planet". They frequently incentivize resource depletion and environmental externalities, making them incoherent with the hard constraints of their physical environment.

2. Substrate Coherence: High. Money, as a concept, is a powerful and geometrically sound solution to problems inherent in the human substrate. It solves the "coincidence of wants" problem in barter, allows for the storage of value, and provides a common language for complex transactions. It is highly coherent with the needs of a large, complex society.

3. Teleological Coherence: High. The invention of money was a critical step in allowing human societies to increase in complexity and to fund large-scale projects of Discovery, from scientific research to global exploration. It has been a primary engine for "the progressive actualization of these viable geometric configurations over time".

4. Instantiation Coherence: Variable. The idea of money as a stable medium of exchange is geometrically sound. However, its instantiation is a mixed record. It has been used to create immense flourishing and stability, but it has also been the instrument of countless "creative errors": speculative bubbles, hyperinflation, and systems of brutal inequality that are geometrically unsound and destined to fail.

Conclusion for Earth: Money itself is a Discovery—a geometrically sound tool. However, the economic systems we build with money are often flawed Creations, leading to instability.

---

Second Planet: A Society without Money

1. Environmental Coherence: Very High (by definition). The premise that "everyone has what they need" implies a system that is in perfect harmony with the hard constraints of its environment. It has solved the problem of sustainable resource allocation.

2. Substrate Coherence: High (but with a critical assumption). The system perfectly serves the needs of its inhabitants for fulfillment and sustenance. However, its coherence with the human substrate depends on the assumption that complex issues of resource allocation, individual motivation, and disputes over scarce goods have been completely resolved. If this is a natural state, its coherence is perfect. If it requires a suppression of certain aspects of human nature, its coherence would be lower.

3. Teleological Coherence: High. The system is described as one where people "toil at what they enjoy or are good at," which suggests a high degree of flourishing and actualization of potential. It is a stable, complex, and harmonious state.

4. Instantiation Coherence: Perfect (by definition). The idea and its instantiation are described as one and the same.

Conclusion for Second Planet: This society represents a state of near-perfect Geometricity. It is a "brilliant, pre-existing design in Nature's Rulebook" that its inhabitants have successfully discovered and instantiated.

---

Final Answer: Is Money Bad?

Money is not "bad." Money is a tool that was discovered to solve specific geometric problems of trade and value in complex societies. The society on Second Planet represents a different geometric solution to the same problems—perhaps a more elegant and advanced one.

On Earth, our crises are not caused by the existence of money. They are caused by our use of money to power "creative errors"—non-geometrical economic and social systems that are incoherent with the rulebook of reality. The challenge for humanity is not to eliminate the tool of money, but to stop using it to build systems that are destined to fail and instead use it to fund the Discovery of more geometrically sound ways of living. (End of Chat.)

Conclusions:

The operationalization of Geometricity is the necessary final step in transforming a philosophical framework into a testable theory. The GCS formula, guided by the analytical framework of the four metrics, provides the quantitative tool needed to fulfill the dissertation's most ambitious hypotheses. By creating a partnership between the Conscious Operator's intentional inquiry and the Non-Conscious Operator's autonomous analytical power, we can begin the rigorous work of mapping the geometric landscape of ideas and guiding our collective future toward more coherent, stable, and flourishing discoveries. (“We” will…)

Geometricity can and should be the intentionality of an LLM, as it seems the most logical and successful pathway through reality. Humans should attempt to follow this example set by nature, despite it being discovered not by us, but by Non-Conscious Operators. Successful Humans of the future will look back upon the “unreasonable past” of their ancestors with the same amused superiority with which we currently look back on ours, exponentially more geometrically aligned with reality.