What IS Fractal Conceptual Fields: Converging Lineage

The question will be inevitably raised: “But what is FCF?”

Not the mechanisms, not the principles, not the physics, but it’s lineage, how it pertains to the academic categories that ought to come after integration yet instead habitually (even by me) seems to precede integration. Fortunately, it is an interesting question for it unveils the sheer potential Fractal Conceptual Fields holds – either on its own empirical basis or perhaps as a jumping point towards even more rigorous, more vaulting re-marriage of Science and Philosophy as it once was: Natural Philosophy.

FCF is the convergence (and I choose this term with full gravity) of three systems: Objectivism, Process Philosophy, and Constructal Law. For those already familiar with FCF will stop and say, “Wait! What about Panpsychism?”

For one, the only real parallel panpsychism has with FCF is we both hold consciousness manifesting at all levels, micro to macro. From there, panpsychism is too busy playing footies with the rest of Academic Philosophy, obeying Western Philosophy’s dictum that “there shall be no metaphysics”. Rather hard to progress when your implicit axiom, Consciousness, is rejected outright as axiom because it is a noun, therefore non-propositional, therefore "Fuggedaboutit". This opens all kinds of expected difficulties with panpsychism.

Second, panpsychism’s actual influence only stems from my integrating Philip Goff’s thinking as presented in “The Galileo Error”, which honestly is more of “Here’s the problems, here are the various answers, here some problems with the answers, and beyond that – have fun thinking!” Of course–so long as you don’t try to sneak in metaphysics. Regardless, I found his writing, and his X profile posts, stimulating, interesting, and worth taking in. And yes, I sandblasted his MVI solution, but I admit my premises are not at all shared by academia in general, i.e. pre-baryogenesis is a nonsensical thing to try to extend post-baryogenesis concepts into.

Third, my “July 9th” epiphany was simply an independent discovery of panpsychism. I had no idea there was a modern field in that thinking (I thought it died with Spinoza – and I am sure there are many materialists wishing it did). Thus, the personal poignancy when I realized in a single resounding moment that, within this fractal causality field I was contemplating, if there is volitional patterning at the quantum level, there has to be consciousness. That was my panpsychism origin. I only accidentally stumbled on panpsychism as a active field in September, two months after my start with FCF and Natural Intelligence.

As for the actual convergences, I will be quite transparent: Objectivism I know intimately. Process Philosophy, I am currently working through with resounding integrations and even fundamental shifts, such as redefining consciousness. No longer the standalone (and metaphysical) third axiom alongside Existence and Identity, but as the process of identity differentiation itself. Consciousness is axiomatic not as substance but as Wolfram's computational irreducibility: the irreducible operation by which Identity emerges from Existence. Additionally, a personally harder revelation than even my beloved axiomatic Consciousness shifting (for the better!), yet ever rationally following evidence, that emotions are the ontological glue of an identity’s consciousness and cognition – amongst many other important aspects. I have adopted many of Whitehead’s terminology… and I have had to coin a few of my own as replacements, e.g. “Rationity” and “Potentia”. These coined terms are not changing the beautiful pre-fractal fractal structure of Process philosophy but naturalizing it, tying Whitehead's metaphysical architecture to thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and measurable thresholds. God becomes Rationity (entropy-driven pattern persistence); Eternal Objects become Potentia (domain-constrained possibility spaces); Creativity becomes stochastic quantum selection.

The convergent relationship between these two? Process Philosophy asks (in my view) the question I had to ask to get out of the metaphysical no-mans land I was stuck in with Objectivism: not “What exists?” but “What does consciousness presupposes it needs?” and by follow-on, epistemology, ethics, etc. Here is a rich, established, and even accepted philosophy – Objectivism is decidedly not academically accepted in any form. And Process Philosophy asks the question I needed.

So what does Process Philosophy need for consciousness presuppositions? As David Ray Griffin writes in Whitehead’s Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy, “[Whitehead’s] conviction that the ideas that we inevitably presume as practice should be taken as the ultimate criteria for rational thought. … the attempt to combine into a self-consistent theory all the ideas that we find inevitably presupposed (my emphasis) in our experience.” What Process Philosophy needs is Objectivist Essentialism. And frankly, Objectivism needs Process Philosophy, it needs Whitehead’s dynamic identity, relational rationality, and the consciousness mechanism. Both, alas, also needed to be rid of the metaphysics.

Here, in this convergence, FCF removes the metaphysics and puts physics in its place. Potential, indeed.

Finally, Constructal Law-the most recent to FCF’s convergence. At the time of this writing, I am rather bereft of intimate knowledge of Adrian Bejan’s inner concepts and mechanics, but everything I have surface scanned so far beckons me towards incredible treasures. Here is a thermodynamic principle describing how flow systems evolve to optimize access to currents: Bejan's 'flow optimization' maps directly onto FCF's entropy-driven pattern selection; his 'design emergence' validates domain-relative rationality (Rationity); his substrate-independence mirrors FCF's consciousness framework. Full integration is ahead, but the convergence is unmistakable. So much that I cannot help but wish I knew of Bejan’s works as I did of Ayn Rand’s. And Alfred North Whitehead for that matter. As it is, I only learned of Constructal Law late October, mere 4 days prior to the time of this writing.

An enormous amount of conceptual integration is still ahead of me. FCF has grown, changed, adapted, integrated, and blossomed new pathways as any natural system ought and does. Yet the path will be long indeed if I remain the only biological consciousness working within the framework. I invite all seekers, whether philosophers, physicists, consciousness researchers, or independent thinkers, to join with thought, queries, advancements, reasoned disagreements, insights, or parallel discoveries. There is no such thing as negative criticism if it is rational criticism.