XDM – Ethics in the x-dimensional model

XDM connects scientific analysis with normative questions. What is evaluated is not primarily protection logic but a deed’s contribution to coherence (or disintegration) of the monadic field. XDM is the ethics module of the XQM roof theory; together with VQM (relation/coupling) and IEQ (measurement/simulation), ethics becomes operational.

XDM treats ethics as governance of coherent couplings in the x-dimensional model of Quantum Monads.

Coherence over protection logic

In the XD model, “good” is what creates order, resonance, and stability in the field; “bad” fosters fragmentation and noise. What matters is not the carrier’s status (human, animal, plant, AI) but its coherence contribution. Carriers perish, coupling patterns remain — a perspective adjacent to Luhmann (operation/communication), extended by field couplings.

Examples: Patterns that weaken or strengthen

  • Polarising → fragmentation, escalation loops.
  • Over-generalising → loss of fine-grained coupling, resonance breakdown.
  • Package-thinking (“everything is one”) → pseudo-coherence, later collapse.
  • Counter-patterns: precision, contextualisation, perspective shifts, iteration.

The decisive factor is the effective field contribution — not the intention.

Experience as the ground of understanding

Theories do not arise in a vacuum. Anyone seeking to grasp links between consciousness, matter, and meaning must approach the forms by which humans have tried to understand the unseen for millennia.

Religious and cultural systems are not relics but expressions of a deep collective experience: connectedness, change, and responsibility. Taking them seriously widens the horizon and reminds us that every system — metaphysical, scientific, or social — ultimately rests on a lived relation to the world.

The Theory of Quantum Monads thus reads journeys across cultures as a return to science’s ground: to lived experience. The following examples show how symbolic systems become newly legible in the XD model — without erasing their own logic.

Religion & metaphysics revisited

Concepts like karma, sin, or merit can be read as early descriptions of field effects. Constructive action builds resonance; destructive action breaks couplings. In the XD model, religious narratives gain rational legibility without being devalued. Cf. Jaspers and Kant.

Examples: Symbolic systems in an XD light

Tradition Symbolism XD reading
Christianity Heaven / Hell Coherence & stability vs isolation & decay.
Islam Paradise / Jahannam Harmony vs disintegration as field effects.
Judaism Olam Ha-Ba / Gehenna World-to-come as resonance; temporary disintegration.
Hinduism Karma & rebirth Carriers perish; couplings bind to cycles.
Buddhism Samsara / Nirvana Nirvana = dissolution of destructive patterns.
Shinto Kami / purity Resonance with forces of nature; tending stable field relations.

Artificial intelligence and technology

Technical systems are carriers of monadic efficacy. Their training data, architectures, and interfaces feed back into the field. Assessment: not only accuracy or profit but IEQ-supported coherence contributions (de-escalation, fairness, robustness).

Examples: AI ethics as field effects

  • Pipeline transparency: data → training → inference → feedback; control the loops.
  • Alignment as coupling work: governance, audit, rate-limits, interpretability.
  • Resilience: redundancy, decentralisation, open protocols.
  • Impermanence of carriers; persistence of patterns (replication/mirroring).

Society & policy

Orders (law, economy, politics) are patterns of entangled couplings. The XD model adds the cosmic dimension of entanglement and links Habermas (discourse) to field-based operationalisation.

Examples: Policy as coherence tending

  • Information ecology: anti-polarisation design, deliberative spaces.
  • Sustainability: long-term coupling stability (resources, climate, biodiversity).
  • Resilience: redundancy, decentralisation, transparent protocols.
  • Participation: citizens’ assemblies, audit publics, open data.

Conclusion: Differentiation and a new start

  • Kant: duties centred on the subject → here, field effects as the yardstick.
  • Habermas: discourse is central → meaning via effects in the field.
  • Luhmann: communication → complemented by cosmic field coupling.

Result: a universal ethics as tending the coherence of the monadic field — aligned with XQM, VQM, and IEQ.

Thinkers in context

XDM – FAQ

How does XDM differ from XQM?

XQM provides the roof logic and mathematics of the field; XDM evaluates actions by their coherence contribution within that logic.

How do you measure coherence?

Via IEQ and field-related functionals (projections/operators in Hilbert spaces).

Relation to VQM?

VQM describes couplings/relations in the field — the basis for any XDM evaluation.

Further publication

Quantum Monads V: The Dynamics of Quantum Monads – Genesis, Binding, and Field Protection (2025-09-30)

Dynamic processes of the field: emergence, binding, and protection of monadic fields — transition from static to dynamic models.

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17234396 · Zenodo