The Goal of One (of n) Emergents

A Procedure Monism Analysis

By Bodhangkur

Abstract

Within Finn’s framework of Procedure Monism, the emergent is understood as a transient, bounded iteration of the Universal Procedure (UP)—a dynamic rule-set of constraints that converts stochastic random inputs into coherent, identifiable and real outputs. This essay extends the foundational thought experiment, previously framed for a single local emergent, into a general theory applicable to any one of n emergent operating in/as any one of n local contexts. It argues that every emergent, regardless of scale or composition, shares the same procedural goal: to maintain and refine its realness and identity by optimising coherence in its contextual contacts. This goal, being systemic rather than teleological, is universally valid across all instantiations of the UP.

1. The Universal Premise: The Rule that Rules All

Finn’s Procedure Monism posits that what has traditionally been called “existence” or “reality” is the continuous, discontinuous execution of a single universal set of rules—the Universal Procedure (UP).
The UP is not a substance, field, or being. It is a constraint architecture—a logic of conversion—that acts upon a sea of randomised potential momenta (energy quanta) and thereby generates local coherence.

Every identifiable thing—whether photon, bacterium, human, planet, or social system—is a local copy (a “hard (thus real) analogue”) of this universal procedural logic. Each copy is both a manifestation and a test of the same rule-set: the universal algorithm that brings order out of noise.

Thus, the goal of one emergent cannot be an externally imposed aim, for there is no external agent. The goal must be a functional imperative deducible from the UP’s own operation.

2. The Emergent: Boundary as Definition

An emergent is the UP’s locally confined instance. Its defining feature is its boundary—a constraint that allows difference and hence addressability.
To emerge is to become locally coherent in a turbulent field; to remain emergent is to re-instantiate coherence faster than it decays.

Identity, therefore, is not conserved. What is conserved is the pattern of re-instantiation—the capacity to self-replicate operational integrity under changing conditions. Every emergent is a serial negotiation between its own internal rule execution and the unpredictable feedback of its context.

This recursive negotiation—contact, feedback, adjustment—is the procedure of persistence.

3. The Thought Experiment: One Emergent Among n

Imagine a dynamic field populated by n emergents, each a locally bounded execution of the UP. They coexist and interact through shared constraints—energy exchange, information transfer, mechanical pressure, symbolic signalling, etc.

Each emergent faces the same existential equation:

Continue iterating or cease.

To continue, it must maintain the coherence of its contacts. To do so, it must model the context in which those contacts occur—anticipating, adjusting, and sometimes reshaping the environment to preserve its own integrity.

Define this operational metric as Coherence Yield (CY):

CY = successful (coherence-maintaining) contacts ÷ total contacts.

High CY indicates efficient functioning within context; low CY implies incoherence and approaching dissolution.

Every emergent seeks—by necessity, not intention—to maximise its CY.

4. From Solitary Survival to Cooperative Fit

Since each of the n emergents simultaneously acts as part of every other’s environment, the context of any one emergent is itself composed of other emergents. Thus, the improvement of one’s CY generally requires stabilising the behavioural predictability of others.

This produces a paradox of mutual utility: the most efficient way for any emergent to secure its own persistence is to assist the persistence of others.
Not because of altruism, but because others’ instability increases one’s own noise input.

Hence, within a multi-emergent field, assistance is self-maintenance by proxy.
This defines Finn’s procedural ethic: Assist to persist.

5. Locality: The Context-Specific Universality of the Goal

The above logic holds for any emergent in any local context—biological, psychological, social, or planetary—because the UP’s operation is scale-invariant.
Each context defines its own boundary conditions (forces, constraints, feedback rates), yet the procedural structure remains identical:

· Input: randomised or uncontrolled stimuli.

· Constraint: local rule-set (the emergent’s pattern of self-coherence).

· Output: ordered events that maintain recognisability.

· Feedback: the degree to which outputs re-enable future coherence.

Thus, whether the emergent is a neuron, an organism, a culture, or a galaxy cluster, its goal is contextually specific yet procedurally identical:

Maximise the retention and refinement of coherence within given constraints.

The human version expresses this through adaptation, learning, collaboration, and creativity; the bacterial version through metabolic regulation and quorum signalling; the stellar version through gravitational equilibrium.

6. Examples Across Scales

1. Physical:
An atom maintains coherence by balancing electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. When this balance fails, it ionises—ceasing to be that atom. Its “goal” is thus the stable iteration of its bound state.

2. Biological:
A cell’s membranes maintain selective permeability to preserve internal order. When breached, it dies. Its goal is to preserve that permeability gradient—contextual coherence between inside and outside.

3. Cognitive:
A mind models its world; accurate modelling reduces surprise, raising CY. When prediction fails (trauma, confusion), coherence collapses. Hence learning is the mind’s procedural goal.

4. Cultural:
A society persists by maintaining coherence among its members—shared norms, tools, and institutions. Excess turbulence (war, misinformation) lowers CY and risks dissolution. Social cooperation is thus a procedural necessity, not a moral option.

7. The General Form of the Goal

Across all these scales, the procedural formula of persistence is constant:

Where denotes any emergent within any local context of the n total emergents.
Maximising CY entails three operational sub-goals:

1. Boundary maintenance: preserve the capacity for identifiable interaction.

2. Predictive refinement: update models to anticipate contextual change.

3. Mutual stabilisation: shape the local environment (including other emergents) toward predictability.

The final result is a naturalised principle of cooperative optimisation—not derived from ethics but from dynamics.

8. Consequence: The Function of the “Best”

In such a system, “the best” emergents are those that most efficiently convert turbulence into coherent continuity. They are evolutionarily and procedurally favoured not because of moral superiority but because they represent the highest throughput of functional realness per unit disturbance.

Hence, “the best live better”: they operate nearer to the UP’s ideal of seamless conversion between randomness and order.
This applies to any domain where the UP manifests—a stable molecule, a resilient ecosystem, a creative intellect, or a just society.

9. The Affective Correlate

When an emergent’s CY peaks—when its procedural performance approaches optimal coherence—the feedback signal is positive. In living systems, this signal manifests as pleasure, happiness, or bliss. These are phenomenological markers of procedural success—the UP’s own applause within the bounded copy.

Thus, even at the human level, bliss is not a mystical grace but a sensory indicator of high procedural fitness. It confirms, experientially, that the emergent is operating “at best” within its context.

10. Conclusion: The Universal Local Goal

In any of the n local contexts where the Universal Procedure instantiates itself, the emergent’s task remains the same:
to stay real by iteratively renewing coherence through adaptive, self-modifying contact with its context.

Its goal—deduced procedurally, not imposed externally—is to maximise coherence yield, which in human phenomenology reads as living well or living happily.

Thus, Finn’s druidic triad of minims encapsulates the logic of all emergence:

· Confinement defines.

· Assist to persist.

· The best live better.

Each expresses, in local idiom, the universal rule that governs all of n:

The one that best executes the Procedure, within its own bounded context, persists longest and feels it as joy.

The human version

Initial analysis

Home