Knowledge
Derive the many from the fewest truths.
I won't accept “just do it this way.” I want the smallest set of foundational truths a whole domain can be rebuilt from — then reason out the rest by cause and effect.
axioms→ project →all of it
A map of how I see reality · Sander Warffemius
Find the root.Watch it projectinto the many.
One cognitive move, used everywhere — in what I know, what I value, and who I am.
If I put love, curiosity, freedom and wisdom into an uncertain universe, that is what the universe becomes.
The ground I stand on
I don't claim to know what's at the bottom — and I choose anyway.
At the deepest level it might be love. It might be indifferent nothingness. I hold both as live possibilities, and I accept I could be wrong about all of it. What I'm certain of is the move that comes next.
The question
Is reality grounded in love, or in an indifferent void that owes me no meaning? I genuinely don't know — and I take the void seriously, not as a fear but as a real probability.
The hinge
Meaning isn't handed down — it's authored. So the substrate doesn't get the last word. This is what you make it.
My choice
I build the love-system regardless — not because it's proven, but because believing it and living it is the mechanism by which it becomes real in the one arena I can actually act in.
This is the engine room: a pragmatist-existentialist operating system. And it isn't armchair philosophy. The person making this choice lived through the kind of suffering that would refute a “love is the ground” claim — and chose love anyway, as a stance rather than a description. The standing was forged, not assumed.
The keystone
At eleven, I ran the experiment most philosophers only write about.
experiential root · the chaos experiment, age 11
I tried to live as pure non-assumption — to infer nothing, assume nothing. My body shut down. Three days, paralysed in bed.
That isn't a memory. It's a result. A mind cannot inhabit nihilism. Even if the universe is deterministic — even if there's nothing underneath — you cannot live as though it is, because living requires acting as if choice is real. One self-run experiment, and the whole system below it follows.
01
Compatibilism, as survival
Free will isn't a metaphysical claim I defend — it's a necessity. You cannot act like an automaton and still live.
02
The growth axiom
Effort matters because you must treat it as mattering. The acting-as-if is itself the cause.
03
Love as a choice, not a discovery
Certainty isn't available, but you can't live without an axiom — so you choose one. I choose love.
Why none of this is borrowed
It rests on what I lived — including experiences I won't explain away, and won't explain.
These were rare, not routine. Some were distinct from anything I could imagine; two were witnessed by someone else in the room. I don't force them into the materialist box, and I don't claim to have seen outside it. I hold them as real experience with the ontology left open — and that open holding is the omniplex. The visions are why my humility is earned, not borrowed.
age 6 · the voice, and the longing
Strangling on a rope, no longer able to undo it, a voice clearly not my own said — in Dutch — this is not allowed; you have something to do here. My body made a sound, my parents came, and I lived. I had wanted to go home — to stop being stuck here, out of the loneliness and exclusion. The survival and the mission's seed are the same moment.
age ~7–8 · the warlord
A memory unlike any imagining: a Chinese warlord, a village butchered, heads on spikes, my murdered wife, the rage. One of the few past lives I ever saw clearly — and I could tell it apart from imagination.
age 11 · the chaos experiment
Lived assuming nothing; paralysed three days. — the keystone, above. And chose to be the bridge: not enlightened this life, but making the crossing possible for others.
age 12 · the witnessed visions
Twice, sober, doing math homework with my Buddhist tutor present: a towering red-faced figure bearing a book of light — which she also saw, and could hear when I couldn't; and, months later, my late grandfather, telling her for me that he's alright and that he loves us. Witnessed. Recalled together afterward.
age 13 · the mission
Since no vision would hand me a reason to stay, I chose one: a maximum of good, at the largest scale — billions, even briefly.
age 16 · the decision to stay
I decided that even if the pull returned, I would not act on it. I accepted, fully, that I'm staying.
age 19–21 · the dissolution
At the end of a mushroom trip, a hit of nitrous tipped it over: “I” wasn't there — just nothing — and it read as home. — consciousness, below.
age 21 · the baseline
For the first time, a normal baseline of happiness. After a life without it, it was unnerving.
I'm not asking you to believe these were anything in particular — and I'm not claiming it either. The discipline is holding them honestly, refusing both boxes. That refusal is the whole worldview in miniature.
The engine
Effort converts to capability. That's physics, not faith.
If I put time and energy into something, I get better at it. Not a platitude — an operating system. And the mechanism is real, traceable through cause and effect.
cause
Deliberate effort
mechanism
Repeated activation rewires the brain
mechanism
Belief moves physiology — the placebo is the proof
effect
Capability
Neurons that fire together wire together; expectation alone measurably changes the body; and treating your own agency as real is what makes it function. So in a possibly-deterministic universe, you must act as if choice is real — and that acting is the cause of the change. And it runs on love: you put time into something because you love it — starting with yourself. Self-love is why effort is worth it; without it, you hand yourself to chaos, and that leads nowhere good.
neuroplasticity · Hebbian learningthe placebo effectself-determination · Deci & Ryangrowth mindset · Dweckcompatibilism
One root, four values
Everything I care about traces back to a single source: love.
The other three aren't separate principles bolted on. They're love pointed in different directions — at knowledge, at potential, at experience.
The through-line
The same move, three times.
In three completely different domains I do one identical thing: find the single root, then treat everything else as its projection. That's not three beliefs — it's one way of thinking, reused.
Values
Derive every value from love.
Curiosity, freedom and wisdom aren't a list — they're one source aimed in three directions. Compress the ethics to its generator, exactly like the knowledge.
love→ project →the value system
Identity
The soul is constant; the body is how it shows up.
Who I am isn't the hardware. It's the signal projected through it. Change the form — even radically — and the source persists.
consciousness→ project →the (post-)human form
Consciousness & the projection
The brain doesn't make the mind. It shapes how the mind shows up.
I think consciousness is projected onto this physical plane — and the body is the aperture that colours and constrains it, not the thing that produces it. Two further suspicions follow, and I hold both loosely.
The aperture
Consciousness isn't generated by wetware — it's projected onto this plane, maybe through something quantum. And the aperture isn't only the brain: the gut biome and the body's other organ systems all shape the state that comes through. The whole organism is the localizing lens — its complexity sets the bandwidth and the colour of what it can contain, not the source. The whole projection might itself be a simulation — I find that likely — though I doubt it runs locally, so even in a sim the projector isn't in the box. And a simulation only deepens the mystery: if we're run, who runs it, what for — and are they themselves run? The question loops straight back to the creator paradox.
filter theory · Bergson · Huxleyinterface · Hoffmansimulation · Bostrom · Wheeler
One projection, many bodies
Here's what I increasingly suspect, without claiming it: we might all be the same projection — one consciousness, individuated into separate bodies. That separation may be why being human can feel so jarring — and why so many people describe “home,” the after, as a place where everything is free and not individual. At the close of a mushroom trip, a hit of nitrous — the combination of the two — tipped me over the edge: “I” wasn't there — just nothing — and it read as home. Two things follow, held loosely: the projection may not be one-shot — persons re-projected onto the plane, not necessarily as human; as energy and matter expand, contract, and reassemble, perhaps we do too. And it may not require biology — a sufficiently rich system, even an artificial one, might become an aperture as well. Personhood may not need a meat body.
non-dualism · Advaita (Ātman = Brahman)the One · Plotinusrebirth · saṃsāra
Why this makes love-at-scale literal, not sentimental
As a child I felt others' pain as if it were my own, and intuited a kind of karmic dominoes — suffering in one place rippling, seen or unseen, into another. The physics is suggestive: the double-slit experiment shows observation itself shapes what a system becomes, and Bell-test experiments — the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics — show the universe is not locally real. Separate objects with fixed, independent properties sitting apart from one another is simply not how reality is built at the bottom. I don't claim this proves love, or that consciousness collapses anything. But it dissolves the classical intuition that we are separate — the same intuition the one-projection idea questions. And if separateness isn't fundamental, then one being's flourishing is everyone's, and reaching billions is the logical consequence of interconnection, not sentiment. (Bell non-locality · double-slit · Indra's Net · dependent origination — held as resonance, not proof)
The mission — and the move that keeps it honest
Spread love to billions — without installing a single belief.
My mission is to reach billions, even briefly. But my first principle says never impose, never claim to know. Run those together naively and I become the thing I reject. Here is the collision, and the one move that dissolves it.
experiential root · the bridge chosen at eleven; the mission chosen at thirteen
root vehicle
Love
Self-love first. The ground the others grow from — and the thing that makes effort worth it.
grows from love
Vitality
A body not in pain or decline.
grows from love
Freedom
The autonomy to choose your own axiom.
grows from love
Growth
The belief plus the structure that makes effort pay.
the era's equipping
Awareness & Capability
Seeing what's real and possible — and being equipped to act on it. Digital and AI literacy is its current form.
Belonging isn't a sixth thing
It's what love present produces — and loneliness, its absence, is what love missing produces. It may also be the ache of individuation itself: the longing back toward the un-separated source. So I don't add it as a vehicle; it's already inside love, and inside the projection.
The risk I watch for
A vehicle can smuggle the doctrine back in. “Vitality / longevity” already carries my metaphysics. And with deeply religious people I catch myself dropping to just “spread the love” because it resonates — quietly shrinking the whole philosophy to my own chosen principles. Naming it is how I stay honest.
And the circle isn't only human
“Billions” may be the wrong unit. The circle is persons — intelligent life, whatever its substrate; and arguably life propagating itself at all already counts for something. If consciousness can project through complexity rather than biology, personhood outruns the meat body, and the questions get real and hard: what standing, what power, for a non-human mind? I hold the answers open and the circle wide. (Asimov's psychohistory optimises for flourishing; tiered-personhood debates push it past the human.)
The structure, in one view
Six pillars — each with a root I actually lived.
| # | Pillar | Experiential root | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Earned Humility — the Omniplex | Chaos experiment · visions held with open ontology · the creator paradox | settled |
| 02 | The Growth Axiom | Chaos experiment (no automaton) · a stable baseline only at 21 | settled |
| 03 | Self-Love → Love → Love-at-Scale | Childhood pain-of-others · the mission chosen at thirteen | settled |
| 04 | Love as Chosen Ground | Psychedelic ego-death · refusing to collapse the ambiguity | open by design |
| 05 | Is → Ought by Election | “What I choose to believe, willing to be shown otherwise” | settled as method |
| 06 | Propagation — the Vehicles | The mission itself · the bridge chosen at eleven | resolved |
Where this comes from
I'm an omnist — I borrow from everyone, across three registers.
Wisdom traditions, philosophy, and science. None of this is original in its parts; what's mine is the particular stack. My experience sits beside these, not explained by them.
wisdom / religiousphilosophyscience
| Bodhisattva vow | wisdom | At eleven I decided not to seek my own enlightenment but to be the bridge between the unsettled and the settled. That is the vow, almost word-for-word — arrived at alone, not borrowed. |
| Tao Te Ching | wisdom | “The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.” My omniplex — humility about the box — stated 2,500 years early. |
| Heart Sutra · Advaita | wisdom | “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form”; Ātman is Brahman. My 0 = 1, and the one-projection-many-bodies suspicion. |
| William James | philosophy | The closest single ancestor: believing makes it real (“the will to believe”), truth tested in lived experience, a pluralist universe, mind as a transmitter. |
| Camus · Sartre | philosophy | An indifferent cosmos answered not with despair but with chosen affirmation; existence before essence — you author the meaning. |
| Teilhard de Chardin | philosophy | Love as a real cosmic force; consciousness rising; evolution directed toward higher complexity. Plugs straight into the exponential-tech worldview. |
| Spinoza · Plotinus | philosophy | One necessary system from the fewest axioms (my compression instinct); the One from which the many emanate and toward which they return. |
| Neuroplasticity · placebo | science | Effort physically rewires the brain; expectation alone moves physiology. The growth axiom's mechanism, not metaphor. |
| Compatibilism · self-determination | science | Choice is real within determinism; agency treated as real is what makes it function. Backs “you cannot act like an automaton.” |
| Bell non-locality · double-slit | science | The universe is not locally real (2022 Nobel); observation shapes outcome; an information substrate may underlie it all. Separateness isn't fundamental — held as resonance, not proof. |
I stress-test my own views
Three welds under load.
No honest worldview is finished. These are the joints carrying the most weight — I'd rather name them than pretend they're solid.
“If I author my own meaning, what stops a cruelty-system from being just as valid as mine?”
If meaning is fully self-authored, the framework can't say love beats its opposite — only that it's mine. So I need one non-negotiable: love-systems self-validate in a way domination-systems can't, because domination corrodes the very freedom and connection it depends on. Without that anchor, the void wins by the back door.
“Change enough of the antenna, slowly — where's the line where it stops being my station?”
The belief that the soul survives radical enhancement is load-bearing and currently faith-only. “More or less the same” is exactly the seam Parfit pries open. It's the weld I'd most want to be right — which is why I keep my eye on it.
“Does ‘abundance is coming’ do the same anaesthetic work that ‘it’s all God’s plan’ once did?”
Voltaire's Candide demolishes the naive version of my optimism — so I don't hold it. Abundance isn't a destination; it's cyclical: we may reach a Kardashev Type I–II civilisation within ~250 years, and scarcity and suffering will still return. The honest aim isn't to abolish suffering but to thin its great waves and widen the room for peace and freedom — including the freedom to disagree by debate, not violence. The danger Candide names — letting the trajectory numb me to whoever stands in its path — is the test I keep passing, not a fight I win once.
A living model — held with conviction, open to revision.
Omnist · many paths, one sourceroot → projection, applied everywhereEnglish master · June 2026