Tier 0: Primordial Existence (M0.x)

Type: 🏛️ Foundational
Scope: Core Ontology
Dependencies: None
Glossary Reference: [[08_Glossary_and_Definitions/GLOSSARY|χ (The Logos Field)]]

M0.1 — χ EXISTS AND SELF-GROUNDS

Type: 🟢 Primitive
Scope: Ontology, Logic, Metaphysical Ground
Dependencies: None
Refutation Targets: Internal coherence · Category error · Explanatory sufficiency

CORE CLAIM	STRONGEST OBJECTION	DIRECT RESPONSE	GROUNDS (SUPPORT)	DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS
χ exists and is self-groundingFormal: χ(χ) = χ	“Self-grounding is viciously circular. You are defining existence in terms of itself.”	All ultimate foundations terminate in non-derivable primitives. Circularity is only vicious within a system, not at its base. Any alternative requires infinite regress or brute termination.	Gödel: no sufficiently rich formal system proves its own consistency. Logic, mathematics, and physics all rest on unproven axioms. χ is the ontological analogue of this necessity.	Defeat A (Internal): Show χ generates a contradiction when later axioms are added.Defeat B (Category): Prove “information” cannot be ontic (only epistemic).Defeat C (Explanatory): Provide a non-regressive, non-brute alternative ground with equal or greater explanatory power.
χ is ontologically primitive (not reducible)	“Why not brute facts or Platonic forms instead?”	Brute facts explain nothing; Platonic forms lack causal power. χ is posited specifically as causally generative information.	The classical “participation problem” in Platonism: no account of how abstract forms instantiate concrete reality. χ removes the abstraction/concretion split.	Defeat: Demonstrate a causal mechanism by which abstract forms instantiate without collapsing into χ-like active information.
Information is more fundamental than matter	“Physics treats matter/energy as fundamental, not information.”	Physics describes matter as structured field excitations governed by mathematical relations. Structure + relation = information.	Quantum field theory: particles are excitations of fields; fields are operator-valued mathematical structures. Mass, charge, spin are numerical invariants.	Defeat: Show a physically meaningful notion of “matter” that is not fully describable as structured state information.

Status: Survives unless information is proven incapable of ontic status or an alternative ground avoids regress without brute termination.

M0.2 — TRINITARIAN STRUCTURE IS PRIMITIVE (S / C / R)

Type: 🔵 Schema (Primitive relational form)
Scope: Ontology, Information Flow, Theological Mapping
Dependencies: M0.1
Refutation Targets: Underdetermination · Category error · Uniqueness failure

CORE CLAIM	STRONGEST OBJECTION	DIRECT RESPONSE	GROUNDS (SUPPORT)	DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS
Reality exhibits irreducible triadic structureSource → Channel → Reception	“Triads are modeling conveniences, not ontological necessities.”	The claim is not that humans use triads, but that irreducible relational closure requires ≥3 roles. Dyads collapse into dependency or symmetry without self-sustaining circulation.	Shannon information theory: source, channel, receiver are structurally required. Peircean semiotics: sign–object–interpretant is irreducible.	Defeat A (Category): Show S/C/R is purely epistemic (modeling-only) and not required by ontic interaction.Defeat B (Internal): Demonstrate a self-sustaining relational system with fewer than three irreducible roles.
Christian Trinity maps to S/C/R	“You are reading physics into theology (eisegesis).”	Theological triadic formulations predate modern physics by centuries. The claim is correspondence, not derivation.	Augustine (Lover–Beloved–Love), Aquinas (Knower–Known–Knowing). Physics independently recovers the same relational pattern.	Defeat: Show that Nicene Trinitarianism lacks internal relational sufficiency or requires creation to be relational.
Trinity is uniquely compatible with observed structure	“Other metaphysical systems can explain triads too.”	Many systems contain triads; only Trinitarianism makes triadic relationality ontologically primitive without collapsing into monism or polytheism.	Strict monotheism lacks internal relation; polytheism lacks unity; impersonal metaphysics lacks agency. Trinity alone satisfies unity + relationality + self-sufficiency.	Defeat (Underdetermination): Provide a non-Trinitarian metaphysic with equal internal relational sufficiency that predicts the same structures without ad hoc additions.

Status: Holds as a schema unless triadic relationality is shown to be reducible, optional, or non-unique.

M0.3 — INFORMATION PRIMACY OVER MATTER

Type: 🟢 Primitive (Ontic priority claim)
Scope: Physics, Ontology, Information Theory
Dependencies: M0.1
Refutation Targets: Category error · Reduction success · Empirical contradiction

CORE CLAIM	STRONGEST OBJECTION	DIRECT RESPONSE	GROUNDS (SUPPORT)	DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS
Patterns generate “stuff,” not vice versa	“This is just idealism — matter is obviously real.”	Solidity and materiality are emergent force relations. What is fundamental are the relational constraints, not the sensation of “stuff.”	Atoms are mostly empty space; solidity is electromagnetic repulsion. Forces are field effects; fields are mathematical structures.	Defeat A (Category): Show matter possesses non-relational, non-informational primitive content.
Physical entropy = informational entropy	“You are equivocating between Shannon and Boltzmann entropy.”	They are formally identical (S = −kΣp log p). The equivalence is operationally confirmed.	Landauer’s principle: erasing information has thermodynamic cost. Information is physically instantiated.	Defeat: Show entropy equivalence is formal coincidence with no ontological implication.
Matter emerges from information, not the reverse	“Abstract information cannot cause concrete matter.”	χ is not abstract. It is active, self-instantiating information. Matter is a high-cost, low-flexibility informational state.	QFT: particles are excitations of fields; fields are operator algebras acting on state spaces.	Defeat B (Reduction): Fully reduce information to material state descriptions without remainder or loss of explanatory scope.