# Space Immanence Research Agenda

## Principle

Do not try to test “Space Immanence” all at once. Break it into components.

## Hypothesis family

### 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

| 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.