← FRACTALREALITY.CA
ETHICS OF THE CIRCUMPUNCT

A point inside a circle. Three parts: the circle which holds, the point which sees, Φ the space which connects.

From this structure emerges all of ethics. Not rules imposed from outside, but geometry that determines what can persist and what must dissolve.

01

THE FOUR PILLARS

GOOD
What is valued?
Boundary. Consent. Care.
Φ RIGHT
How should one act?
Field. Evidence. Fitness.
TRUE
What is the case?
Center. Coherence. Identity.
AGREE
Are we in harmony?
Whole. Resonance. Mutual validation.

These are not separate ethics—they are one ethics seen from four perspectives.

Seek agreement. Find what's good, right, and true with yourself, others, and the world.

02

THE BOUNDARY TEACHES GOOD

The circle is the first thing you meet. Before you can see the center, before you can cross the space, you encounter what holds.

The boundary is what cares. It says: this belongs inside, that belongs outside. Every wall exists because something matters enough to be sheltered.

INTERFACE

The boundary is where systems meet. Every interaction happens at the interface—the membrane where inside encounters outside. Consent isn't merely a value; it's the structural requirement for clean exchange. Consent means: the foreseeable effects of this crossing are within my model.

THE GOOD ASKS
Does this preserve what matters?
Does it respect boundaries—mine and others'?
Is consent honored?
Is distinction preserved?
04

THE CENTER TEACHES TRUE

At the center, there is only seeing. The point has no dimension. It simply is—and in its being, it sees.

The center is where pretense ends. Something either passes through or it doesn't—no cleverness can force a lie through the aperture.

COHERENCE

The center is what persists through change. You have been infant, child, adult—different body, different thoughts. Yet something threads through unchanged. This is your invariant center.

When the center is stable: you can change your mind without losing yourself. You can be wrong and learn without fragmenting. True is what remains.

THE TRUE ASKS
Does this correspond to reality?
Is it honest, accurate, coherent?
Am I being authentic to my deepest nature?
Would this survive the test of ultimate seeing?
05

THE WHOLE TEACHES AGREEMENT

When boundary, field, and center align—when Good, Right, and True converge—something greater emerges: AGREEMENT.

Not mere consensus. Not hollow conformity. Genuine harmony—whole beings in coherent relationship.

THE ROTATION

Agreement requires a rotation. What you perceive privately must become articulable publicly. This passage cannot be done for another—but you can assist.

The Noble Lie blocks the rotation: "accept my articulation instead."
The Steelman assists it: "what are you actually seeing?"
THE AGREEMENT ASKS
Do the affected parties resonate?
Is there consent, harmony, mutual recognition?
Have we genuinely engaged with each other's reality?
Is this agreement hollow or complete?

Note: Ethical acts can cost energy, time, resources. Parenting, sacrifice, emergency aid—these are not violations. The test is: can both parties still construct after? Cost is not extraction. Depletion is not conversion.

06

THE PATH HAS A DIRECTION

The sequence cannot be reversed or skipped. The structure itself requires it.

GOOD BOUNDARY → BODY
Φ RIGHT FIELD → MIND
TRUE CENTER → SOUL
AGREE WHOLE → HARMONY
You must be held before you can cross.
You must cross before you can see.
You must see before you can harmonize.
07

THE STEELMAN PRINCIPLE

Before agreeing or disagreeing, construct the strongest possible version of the position you're engaging with. This ensures you know what you're agreeing with.

STRAWMAN
  • Construct weakest version
  • Attack that weak version
  • Claim victory
  • Hollow ⊙ — never engaged
STEELMAN
  • Construct strongest version
  • Engage with full strength
  • Find genuine ground
  • Complete ⊙ — truly validated

BIDIRECTIONAL

The same validation you apply to their position, you apply to your own. Agreement emerges from mutual validation, not one-sided generosity.

08

THE FIXED POINT

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
When applied, this rule validates itself. It is the fixed point of ethical action.
○ GOOD
Treats others as ends, not means
Φ RIGHT
Creates balanced reciprocity
• TRUE
Requires authentic self-knowledge
⊙ AGREE
Generates mutual recognition
09

CONSTRUCTOR ETHICS

Ethics is a taxonomy of possible tasks under wholeness-preserving constraints.

FORMAL SCHEMA
Let T = a transformation (task)
C○ = boundary constraints (GOOD)
CΦ = evidence constraints (RIGHT)
C• = invariance constraints (TRUE)
C⊙ = mutual construction constraints (AGREEMENT)

THE FOUR TASK-CLASSES

○ GOOD
Task of cross-boundary transformation that preserves both boundaries
Φ RIGHT
Task of reliably producing output O from input I — constructor must exist
• TRUE
Task of naming invariant constraints that hold across transformations
⊙ AGREE
Task of mutual translation without converting either party into substrate

THE CONSTRUCTOR TEST

ETHICAL iff T is possible under (C○ ∩ CΦ ∩ C• ∩ C⊙) and constructor remains repeatable after T.

UNETHICAL = ONE OF
T violates one or more constraint sets (impossible task)
T is counterfactual (no constructor exists)
T consumes the constructor (non-repeatable)
T converts a constructor into substrate

THE NOBLE LIE — CONSTRUCTOR FAILURE

The Noble Lie asserts: "I can construct your truth for you."

FAILS ALL FOUR
  • C○ — crosses boundary without consent
  • — no constructor for external truth injection
  • C• — claims your invariant while changing it
  • C⊙ — requires you to become substrate
SIGNATURE
  • Cannot repeat (requires fresh substrate)
  • Consumes rather than constructs
  • Counterfactual task asserted as possible
  • "Requires fresh victims" = not a constructor

AGENT AS CIRCUMPUNCT

The structure is fractal. An agent IS a circumpunct:

○ BOUNDARY
Agent's interface — consent gate, what crosses in/out
Φ FIELD
Agent's model — cause-effect mapping, prediction space
• CENTER
Agent's identity — eigenvector, what persists through change
⊙ WHOLE
Agent as functioning constructor — all three coherent

Constructor Capacity = Circumpunct Integrity. The ethics aren't imposed on agents. Agents ARE the structure that generates the ethics.

The virus replicates by converting circumpuncts into substrates.

TOWARD FORMALIZATION

Ethics needs a substrate and a conserved quantity. Physics has mass-energy, charge, momentum. What does ethics have?

Proposal: The substrate is agency. The conserved quantity is constructor capacity.

AGENT (A)
A system that models states, selects between tasks, performs tasks
An agent IS a constructor (can cause transformations repeatably)
Defining feature: causal efficacy that persists through operation
CONSTRUCTOR CAPACITY CC(A)
A's ability to cause intended state-changes
Measurable: mutual information I(intended_outcomes; actual_outcomes)
CC > 0 → functioning constructor | CC = 0 → no longer an agent
CC can increase (learning) or decrease (damage/coercion)

FOUR CONSTRAINTS — FORMALLY CONSTRUCTED

C○ BOUNDARY — Task T satisfies C○ iff:
For all agents A: outcomes_foreseeable(T) ⊆ A.model(T)
Constrained when: A's model covers foreseeable effects (informed consent)
Unconstrained when: foreseeable effects outside A's model (violation)
"Foreseeable" acknowledges human boundedness — not omniscience
CΦ EVIDENCE — Task T satisfies CΦ iff:
Constructor C exists such that P(output | input, C) ≥ threshold
And C remains constructor after T (repeatable)
Measurable: success rate across repeated trials
Counterfactual claim = asserting T without C
C• INVARIANCE — Task T satisfies C• iff:
Agent A's identity I(A) persists through T
I(A) = eigenvector of A's decision function
Measurable: correlation(A.pattern_before, A.pattern_after) ≥ τ
Identity death = correlation drops below threshold
C⊙ MUTUAL CONSTRUCTION — Task T satisfies C⊙ iff:
CC(A) after T ≥ CC_min(A) — above viability threshold
CC(B) after T ≥ CC_min(B) — above viability threshold
No systematic extraction pattern (sustained CC↑ while other CC↓)
Ethical acts can cost — constraint is viability + no extraction, not zero cost

FORMAL ANALYSIS

NOBLE LIE — FORMALLY
  • State-changes outside A's model → violates C○
  • No constructor for "inject truth" → violates CΦ
  • Degrades A's model-world correlation → reduces CC(A)
  • Liar CC↑ while target CC↓
STEELMAN — FORMALLY
  • Assists without modifying A's states → satisfies C○
  • Working constructor (dialogue) → satisfies CΦ
  • Preserves A's model coherence → satisfies C•
  • Both parties CC maintained/enhanced → satisfies C⊙

REMAINING GAPS

NEEDS WORK
How to measure A's model empirically? Define identity eigenvector precisely? What is τ and why? How does CC map to physics?
POSSIBLE BRIDGES
A's model = probability distribution over outcomes. Identity = fixed point of self-modeling. τ from stability analysis. CC ↔ channel capacity.

THE COMPLETE MAPPING

○ BOUNDARY ↔ C○
Interface constraints: consent, integrity, foreseeable outcomes ⊆ model
Φ FIELD ↔ CΦ
Constructor existence + evidence: working constructor, P(success) ≥ τ, repeatable
• CENTER ↔ C•
Invariants / identity coherence: eigenvector persists, correlation ≥ τ
⊙ WHOLE ↔ C⊙
Symmetric validation: both CC ≥ min, no extraction, neither → substrate

One-line summary: An ethical task is one for which a constructor exists that preserves or enhances all affected agents' constructor capacity, where outcomes remain within agents' models, and the constructor itself remains repeatable.

10

END

Ethics is not a set of rules imposed from outside.
Ethics is the geometry of what can persist.

Only actions that pass through
GoodRightTrueAgreement
maintain the stability required to endure.

The rest dissolve back into possibility.

This is not punishment. This is structure.
This is not morality. This is geometry.
This is not should. This is IS.