Meta-Update Process
* journal philosophy frontier ethics work1. System Replacement
Inside Ethics(5) we have:
- States
- Admissible transitions1
- Purity constraints(see: Order and Purity)
1.1. Formal
A meta-update destroys system \(S\) and instantiates a new system \(S'\).
There is no continuity requirement. The system is declarative like NixOS: ethical change occurs only by rebuilding and switching to a new generation; runtime execution never justifies or mutates itself. The ethical system is declaratively specified.
- Purity constraints define admissible transitions.
- Changes do not “evolve” the system.
- A meta-update builds a new system.
- Instantiation replaces the old one.
- There is no moral continuity across versions.
- Prior justifications do not survive execution.
The system does not defend itself at runtime.
2. Where reasoning lives during meta-update
During a meta-update, the system is not being ran. it is being theorized, engineered, and reflecting upon. The process is extra-systemic, non-authoritative and non-moral. It has the same status as choosing TYpeScript over Javascript. Once the update is complete, all that reasoning becomes inert. The new system does not appeal to it. It does not remember it. It does not justify itself with it.
3. Why "Reasoning" Exists Inside Ethics(5)
These do not defend our values. There is no "this is good" or "you should want this" or appeal to universality. They explain it structurality.
4. Why this Does Not Violate "The system Ends Where Justification Begins" in Purity and time
Because
- Justification = answering why this system over others
- The reasoning in the system explains what breaks if the constraint is removed
The system allows the second and forbids the first
5. Elsewhere
5.1. References
5.2. In my garden
Notes that link to this note (AKA backlinks).
Footnotes:
A transition is the execution of an action that maps the system from one internal state to another under a fixed ruleset.