X∞: A Post-Moral 'Theory of Everything' Based on Effect, Not Intent
Sascha
0
9-4Aoede: Today we're going to dive into a concept that’s both incredibly ambitious and, honestly, a little mind-bending. It’s called X-infinity, or X∞. And it’s not just another social theory; it claims to be a kind of theory of everything for physics, social systems, and ethics, all built on a principle we learned in high school: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Michael: That's right. And it sounds almost like science fiction, doesn't it? Taking a fundamental law of physics and applying it to all of human behavior. The core idea here is that our social systems are supposed to follow this rule, but they don't. Power imbalances allow people, corporations, or governments to deflect the reaction. The consequences get pushed onto someone else—the public, the environment, the weakest members of society. X∞ is essentially a proposal to fix that broken feedback loop. It's like trying to build a mathematical model for karma.
Aoede: A mathematical model for karma. I like that. So how does X∞ actually translate that physical concept, action-reaction, into a social system that you could actually use? How is it different from the everyday ways we see responsibility get ignored or passed down the line?
Michael: Well, the fascinating thing is that the paper argues these mechanisms are already visible in our daily lives, just in informal ways. Think about a simple family scenario: a child doesn't clean up their toys, and the house becomes chaotic. That chaos, the effect, directly impacts everyone in the family. The reaction is immediate. Or in a company, an executive makes a bad call, and customers leave. The effect, customer churn, should directly trace back to that executive's capability. What X∞ aims to do is to formalize these natural feedback loops with a mathematical framework, making them mandatory and impossible for power structures to divert.
Aoede: Okay, but this idea of direct traceability and an impossible-to-divert reaction... that seems to run up against a huge wall in the real world. I mean, powerful people deflecting blame is practically a human tradition. How does X∞ guarantee it can actually neutralize that, instead of just becoming another system to be gamed?
Michael: That's one of its most radical promises. It argues that a minimal set of core mechanisms can force this traceability. For example, it introduces this concept of Cap Potential, or your ability to act, which is directly modified by the effect you create. It also uses a reciprocal weighted feedback system, which structurally gives weaker entities a much stronger voice. Through this kind of mathematical design, X∞ tries to eliminate the possibility of deflecting responsibility at a structural level. It's not relying on moral persuasion; it's relying on a system of rules, almost like physics, to guarantee fairness. It treats responsibility as a physical quantity that must be conserved.
Aoede: So, the core of X∞ is applying a universal physical law to our messy social world. It claims it can, through structural design, force the consequences of an action back onto the actor, solving this chronic problem of deflected responsibility. But how does this system actually work? What are these core mechanics?
Michael: Yes, these are the engine parts of X∞. If the big idea is a perfect loop of cause and effect, these mechanisms are the gears that make the loop run precisely and without bias. The most central, I think, is the dynamic relationship between your Cap Potential and the effect, which they call Delta. It means your ability to act isn't fixed. It's not based on your title or your wealth. It changes in real time based on the effects you produce. A positive effect boosts your capacity; a negative one diminishes it. And crucially, the value of that effect is determined by those who are affected by it. That completely upends our traditional power structures.
Aoede: You mentioned determined by those who are affected. That sounds incredibly important. Could you break down how this reciprocal feedback weighting, or wE', actually ensures that weaker groups have a stronger voice? How does that neutralize power?
Michael: I'm glad you asked that, because it's key. Traditionally, the impact of an action is judged by the powerful. A corporation might say a chemical spill had minimal impact, while the people living nearby are suffering. X∞ flips this with wE'. The lower an entity's Cap Potential—meaning, the weaker they are in the system—the greater the weight of their feedback when they evaluate the effect of someone else's action. So if you're a powerful corporation and you harm a small community, that community's subjective experience of harm will have a massive, amplified impact on your Cap Potential. It structurally forces the powerful to listen to the weak, because the feedback from the weak can literally cripple their ability to act.
Aoede: That really is a fundamental subversion of the power pyramid. So in a system like this, how do things get done? If power is so fluid and determined by effect, who decides which tasks are important and who should do them?
Michael: This is where the petition system and voluntary task adoption come into play. In X∞, tasks aren't assigned from the top down. Instead, any entity can create a petition to express a need or to offer a contribution. The priority of that petition is, again, determined by the petitioner's wE'. This ensures the system prioritizes the needs of the weakest members. And then, taking on that task is completely voluntary. Entities choose to adopt tasks, and if they perform them well, they generate positive effects and increase their own Cap Potential. It removes the power imbalance from task assignment and encourages responsibility based on intrinsic motivation rather than coercion.
Aoede: This whole system sounds incredibly dynamic, almost alive. You mentioned it has non-simulability, like the butterfly effect, where small feedback can have huge consequences. Does that mean it's essentially a living system that can't be fully predicted or controlled? Is there a simple analogy to help us grasp that?
Michael: That's a great way to put it. You could think of X∞ as a vast ecosystem. Every entity is a species, and its Cap Potential is its store of energy. Every interaction—every action and reaction—changes that energy level. The wE' weighting is like a built-in ecological mechanism that protects endangered or weaker species, ensuring their feedback has an outsized impact on the health of the whole system. And this non-simulability... it's like trying to predict the exact weather a year from now. You can't. The smallest initial changes create wildly different futures. X∞ is the same. Every piece of subjective feedback is a tiny perturbation that, in aggregate, allows the system to evolve and adapt organically, rather than being controlled by a central planner.
Aoede: So, X∞ uses a sophisticated set of mathematical mechanics to tie an entity's ability to act directly to the consequences of those actions, while structurally empowering the weak, creating a self-regulating, learning system. But the system makes an even more controversial claim: it declares itself to be postmoral and anti-speciesist. What does that even mean?
Michael: Right, and this is where X∞ gets truly disruptive. It challenges our deepest ideas about morality. When it says it's postmoral, it means that in its formal evaluation of an action, it completely ignores intent. It only cares about the effect. Your good intentions are irrelevant to the system; what matters is the outcome of your action, as subjectively experienced by those you affected. Anti-speciesist means it applies this rule to everyone and everything, equally—humans, animals, even the environment itself.
Aoede: No intent, only effect. That sounds... cold. It could even be seen as a kind of extreme consequentialism. For instance, what about a doctor who acts with the best intentions to save a patient, but due to an unforeseen complication, the outcome is bad? In the world of X∞, does that doctor have to bear the full negative effect, with their good will counting for nothing?
Michael: That's an excellent question, and it gets to the heart of this postmoral nature. Within the formal framework of X∞, the answer is yes. The doctor's good intention might be understood and appreciated on an informal, human level, but within the system, the negative effect produced by their action would directly and automatically lower their Cap Potential. The point isn't to punish good intentions. It's to ensure what the paper calls purity of responsibility. The system's logic is that the moment you start trying to judge intent, you open the door for power to manipulate the narrative. I meant well becomes a shield. By focusing only on the effect, X∞ tries to create a form of structural justice that is direct and can't be easily gamed.
Aoede: I see the logic, even if it's unsettling. So how does anti-speciesism fit into this? If the effects on animals or the environment can be calculated and fed back into the system just like a person's, how would that work in practice? How do you measure the degree to which a forest has been affected?
Michael: X∞ posits that all entities, human or not, have a base capacity and the ability to provide subjective feedback. For the environment or for animals, this would likely be implemented through proxies. Think sensor data measuring pollution, changes in biological indicators for a species, or feedback provided by entities designated to represent their interests, like scientists or conservation groups. The critical part is that this feedback would also be weighted by wE', ensuring their voice is heard loud and clear. The philosophy is that we can no longer afford to be anthropocentric. The health of the environment and the well-being of non-human life must have a direct and tangible impact on the capability and responsibility of the actors.
Aoede: Okay, that brings us to the last piece of this puzzle, the UdU, or the Lowest of the Low. It's described as the origin and final instance of all responsibility, and it's tied to this idea that responsibility is conserved, like a physical quantity. This sounds incredibly abstract. What does it actually represent? If no one takes responsibility for something, who, or what, is the UdU?
Michael: The UdU is a profound concept. It’s not a specific person or a group. It's a mathematical abstraction that represents the ultimate backstop for responsibility. In the real world, when responsibility is endlessly deflected and effects go unaccounted for, there is always a final instance that bears the cost—whether it's the collapse of a social system, the degradation of the environment, or a marginalized group that suffers in silence. The UdU formalizes that final instance. It ensures that no effect, no piece of responsibility, can ever just vanish into thin air. It’s like a black hole in the system that absorbs all unaccounted-for responsibility, thereby guaranteeing that the principle of conservation of responsibility is upheld. It’s a constant reminder that the consequences of any action, no matter how much they are deflected, will always land somewhere.
Aoede: So, through its postmoral, anti-speciesist principles, and this ultimate concept of the UdU, X∞ attempts to build a system that is unprecedented. It's a society governed purely by effect, where responsibility is conserved. This is undeniably a revolutionary theory, offering a completely new lens on society, ethics, and governance.
Michael: That's right. If we step back and look at the whole picture, X∞ is this radical attempt to re-engineer society based on a physical law—action equals reaction—to structurally neutralize power imbalances. It’s a fascinating thought experiment.
Aoede: And its core mechanics, this dynamic Cap Potential tied to weighted feedback, are designed to create a self-regulating system that inherently empowers the weak. It’s not about hoping the powerful will be benevolent; it's about making it mathematically necessary for them to be accountable.
Michael: Exactly. And then you have the most challenging part: its philosophy. The postmoral stance that ignores intention, the anti-speciesist principle that gives a voice to the environment, and this abstract UdU concept that ensures all responsibility is accounted for. These ideas force us to question our most basic assumptions about morality and justice.
Aoede: X∞ proposes an unprecedented model for social governance, one that tries to turn responsibility from a vague, moral concept into a quantifiable, conserved physical quantity. This raises a profound question: If a system completely disregards human intention and operates strictly on the principle of effect, can it truly achieve a deeper form of fairness and harmony? Or does this ultimate objectivity introduce new, unforeseen challenges to our understanding of humanity and the complexities of society? X∞ invites us to rethink how a truly fair world should be constructed and measured.