Tier_6_Eschatology
Tier 6: Eschatology (E6.x)
Type: 🏛️ Foundational
Scope: Terminal States & Attractors
Dependencies: Tier 5
E6.1 — INFORMATIONAL DYNAMICS HAVE TERMINAL ATTRACTORS
Type: 🟢 Primitive (dynamical necessity)
Scope: Dynamics, asymptotics, systems theory
Dependencies: I2.6, I2.2, I2.3
Refutation Targets: Cyclic eternity · Perfect reversibility
| CORE CLAIM | STRONGEST OBJECTION | DIRECT RESPONSE | GROUNDS (SUPPORT) | DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All irreversible information systems evolve toward terminal regimes | “Systems can oscillate forever.” | Oscillation requires sustained constraint input. Entropy gradients enforce drift toward terminal states. | Thermodynamics, attractor theory. | Defeat: Realistic system avoiding terminal regimes indefinitely. |
E6.2 — THERE ARE ONLY TWO TERMINAL MORAL-INFORMATIONAL ATTRACTORS
Type: 🔵 Schema
Scope: Moral dynamics, civilizational outcomes
Dependencies: R5.1, I2.3, I2.4, I2.6
Refutation Targets: Third-attractor existence · Stable mixed state
| CORE CLAIM | STRONGEST OBJECTION | DIRECT RESPONSE | GROUNDS (SUPPORT) | DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Systems converge toward either coherence maximization or coherence collapse | “Reality is messier than binary outcomes.” | Intermediate states are transient. Noise either overwhelms coherence or is resisted. | Ecology (collapse vs sustainability), institutions (decay vs rule-of-law). | Defeat: Demonstrate a third stable long-term attractor. |
E6.4 — JUDGMENT IS THE READOUT OF COHERENCE STATE
Type: 🔵 Schema
Scope: Moral accounting, theological interface
Dependencies: R5.1, E6.2
Refutation Targets: Externalism · Arbitrary punishment
| CORE CLAIM | STRONGEST OBJECTION | DIRECT RESPONSE | GROUNDS (SUPPORT) | DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judgment = revelation of what a system has become | “Reduces judgment to natural consequence.” | Not reduction—correspondence. Judgment reveals alignment or misalignment. | “By their fruits” logic; systems expose internal structure at scale. | Defeat: Show an incoherent system judged coherent. |
E6.6 — HELL IS TERMINAL COHERENCE FAILURE
Type: 🔵 Schema (interpretive)
Scope: Eschatology, moral ontology
Dependencies: E6.2, E6.3
Refutation Targets: Eternal torture caricature · Non-finality
| CORE CLAIM | STRONGEST OBJECTION | DIRECT RESPONSE | GROUNDS (SUPPORT) | DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hell = terminal state of self-reinforcing incoherence | “That’s metaphorical.” | It is structural: persistent misalignment leads to isolation and loss of agency. | Addictive spirals, psychopathy, totalitarian decay. | Defeat: Demonstrate a terminal incoherent state that is flourishing and relationally rich. |
Section Navigation & Dependencies
You are here: §6 — Tier 6: Eschatology
Purpose of this section:
Analyzes the asymptotic endpoints of informational and moral dynamics, positing terminal attractors as structural necessities.
⟶ Forward Progression
Next: §7 — The Gospel of Information
This section depends on the following prior commitments:
- §5 — Tier 5: Moral Dynamics
- §2.2 — Tier 2: Information Dynamics
⛨ Defense & Scope Control
Primary objections addressed:
→ §9.8 — Falsifying Eschatological Structure
What this section does not claim:
- That it predicts specific calendar dates for terminal events
- That it describes the physical sensory nature of Heaven or Hell
Claim type: Interpretive / Asymptotic
Testability standard: Logical necessity of terminal states in irreversible systems
Reading Guidance
This section is a constraint analysis, not a prophecy. It describes where the dynamics must end if they do not reverse.