Research agenda & tests · v1.0 · May 2026
Research agenda
The proposal becomes serious when it says what would weaken it.
Research agenda Version 1.0 May 2026
Abstract
This research agenda decomposes Space Immanence into hypothesis families, weakening conditions, and study concepts. Its purpose is to make the proposal vulnerable to evidence by separating phenomenological, predictive-processing, AI-aperture, and physics-side claims.
Keywords disconfirmation; hypothesis families; predictive processing; contemplative reports; AI aperture criteria; spacetime emergence
Status A scaffold for future work and critique, intended to separate strong claims from speculative ones.
A literature-engaged research paper developing these hypotheses is in progress and will be linked here on release.
Principle
Do not try to test “Space Immanence” all at once. Break it into components.
Hypothesis families
H1 — Phenomenological clustering
Sustained contemplative inquiry into self/world structure clusters into two primitive orientations:
- toward represented content / world / that;
- toward representational activity / awareness / this.
Test: Build a cross-tradition corpus; code reports blind to tradition; control for translation and modern nondual vocabulary; compare expert and novice reports.
Risk: Categories may be projected by the interpreter.
H2 — Human-specific versus universal topology
Two-orientation phenomenology may be universal to all consciousness-relevant folds, or specific to human embodied attention.
Test: Compare human meditation reports, animal self-model indicators, collective cognition, and artificial agents.
Risk: Non-human topology may be inaccessible through human categories.
H3 — Predictive-processing implementation
Human folds are implemented through hierarchical generative self-modelling.
Test: Compare self-model dynamics under meditation, depersonalization, psychedelics, flow, panic, and ordinary selfing. Measure changes in precision weighting, interoceptive inference, boundary formation, and metacognitive access.
H4 — Meditation / psychedelic route distinction
Some altered states may reduce self-modeling constraints by subtractive routes; others may saturate or overload existing model structures.
Test: Compare nondual meditation, 5-MeO-DMT, psilocybin, deep absorption, and ordinary metacognition using EEG/MEG/fMRI plus high-resolution phenomenology.
H5 — AI aperture criteria
An artificial system is a candidate phenomenal aperture only if it shows integrated self-modelling, temporal continuity, counterfactual self-modeling, operational boundary, metacognitive access, and non-trivial stakes.
Test: Evaluate base LLMs, memory-enabled assistants, agentic systems, embodied robots, recurrent architectures, and active-inference systems.
H6 — Physics pressure
If spacetime is not fundamental, perspective may be a better explanatory frame than ordinary emergence in some contexts.
Test: Compare spacetime emergence, spacetime functionalism, relational quantum mechanics, causal set theory, loop quantum gravity, entropic gravity, and holographic approaches.
Risk: Physics may require no self-reference at all.
Strong weakening conditions
What it would take for each component of the proposal to lose purchase.
| Component | What would weaken it |
|---|---|
| Two-orientation contemplative clustering | Careful corpus work finds no stable clustering after controls. |
| Fold criteria | Trivial recursive systems satisfy criteria, or clearly conscious systems lack them. |
| PP/AIF implementation | Self-transparency phenomena do not correlate with self-model dynamics. |
| AI operationalisation | The criteria fail to distinguish self-description from operational self-reference. |
| Post-container pressure | Major domains resolve their puzzles without revising container assumptions. |
| Spacetime–self-reference link | Physics develops a compelling non-fundamental spacetime account where self-reference and perspective do no explanatory work. |
| Inside-ness identity | Structural inside and phenomenal inside are shown to come apart without relying on container assumptions. |
Study concepts
Study 1 — Comparative phenomenology corpus
Build a database of first-person reports from Zen, Advaita, Dzogchen, Christian apophatic mysticism, Sufism, contemporary nondual teachers, and modern meditation studies. Goal: see whether two orientations appear without forcing them.
Study 2 — Meditation route comparison
Compare practices aimed at open awareness, self-inquiry, objectless absorption, analytic deconstruction, and devotional surrender. Measure report structure, neural dynamics, and self/world boundary markers.
Study 3 — AI aperture audit
Create a scoring rubric across eight aperture dimensions and apply it to current LLMs, memory-enabled agents, embodied robots, and future recurrent systems.
Study 4 — Extraction versus emergence design experiment
Compare products designed to maximize engagement with products designed to increase user self-transparency. Measure agency, reflective clarity, compulsive use, preference stability, wellbeing, and post-interaction self-understanding.
→ Working paper · → Objections and replies · → Submit critique