Update Response to Levin's Ingressing Minds.md

content/exeunt/Response to Levin's Ingressing Minds.md

@@ -2,11 +2,11 @@
 
 **Tl;Dr** *This brief, nonspecialist response proposes a naturalistic teleology that explains the proposed "ingressions" of "patterns" into the development of biological and physical systems. In this telling, the bootstrap capacity of a transcendental object at the end of time (McKenna) acts as a unified source of constraint on morphological histories. Rather than agential forms, "patterns" become knots of mechanical necessity (or perhaps Novikovian self-consistency) in a class of worlds shaped by self-causing systems.*
 
-Suppose a landscape of Everettian many worlds, expressing a "universal wave function" seeded in the early moments of the big bang. The unfolding of events in these different branches are constrained by the initial conditions, but the observers find that the "baggage" of those initial conditions include physical laws and nonzero cosmological constants which transcend and dictate rather than participate in those initial conditions. In the thermodynamic flux of this "monster of energy" there are walls of fixed determination with no clear source. The best available explanation is an infinite ruliad (Wolfram, Tegmark) in which this multiplicity reaches ever farther back into an axiomatic seed from which all physical universes, under whatever conditions, are physically expressed. In this case, in a movement known as the anthropic principle, the mystery is reduced to a matter of observational necessity. 
+Suppose a landscape of Everettian many worlds, expressing a "universal wave function" seeded in the early moments of the big bang. The unfolding of events in these different branches are constrained by the initial conditions, but the observers find that the "baggage" of those initial conditions include physical laws and nonzero cosmological constants which transcend and dictate rather than participate in those initial conditions; in the thermodynamic flux of this "monster of energy" there are walls of fixed determination with no clear source. The best available explanation is an infinite ruliad (Wolfram, Tegmark) in which this multiplicity reaches ever farther back into an axiomatic seed from which all physical universes, under whatever conditions, are physically expressed. In this case, the mystery could be reduced to a matter of observational necessity. 
 
-In a mirror of this problem, Levin (and a host of complexity scientists before him) find both organic and inorganic systems tendentially charged with anomalous preferences that again seem to transcend the blind statistical propagation of natural selection. Levin, if I have understood correctly, poses this apparent transcendence as the result of network effects between organic and inorganic systems and invisible actors, "patterns" - similar to Platonic forms - "which ingress into the physical world," animating material systems with morphogenetic preference. Put otherwise, what appears as morphogenetic preference is rather signal response to subtle forces that interact from a nonphysical space.
+In a mirror of this problem, Levin (and a host of complexity scientists before him) find both organic and inorganic systems tendentially charged with anomalous preferences that again seem to transcend the blind statistical propagation of natural selection. Levin, if I have understood correctly, poses this apparent transcendence as the result of network effects between organic/ inorganic systems and invisible actors, "patterns" - similar to Platonic forms - "which ingress into the physical world," animating material systems with morphogenetic preference. Put otherwise, what appears as morphogenetic preference is rather signal response to subtle forces that interact from a nonphysical space. 
 
-Rather than ghosts in the machine, what if there are **guide rails in morphospace?**  
+The benefit of this reading of apparent transcendence is that it circumvents the need for the God-in-the-gaps anthropic reference to infinities, an explanation that already begins to exhaust itself as it rides up against the minutiae of the ingressions under discussion in Levin's paper. But the unified, binary nature of the anthropic argument (we are either here to observe or we are not) remains compelling. Rather than ghosts in the machine, what if there are **guide rails in morphospace** that reference, in their multiplicity, a *unified* future state, broadcasting preference into the past in order to ensure it's own becoming? What if the actualization of the future event is the determinant in whether we were here to accomplish it in the first place? 
 
 ## Observational Effects of TOET
 It would seem that an anthropic counterpart to the problem of physical laws and constants could be extended to include Levin's morphogenetic preference - but what if a naturalistic explanation existed that could manage the multiplicity of Everett's many worlds, but avoid slipping into the positing of infinities in order to neutralize away anomalies in both cases?