9.27 Does human mind need 4-layer hierarchy to conceive reality?
In the history of science and philosophy, we often encounter a phenomenon we might call the “Useful Scaffold.” This occurs when a thinker formulates groundbreaking and permanently valid laws based on premises that are later proven to be incomplete or “false.” A classic example is Isaac Newton’s laws of motion: they function perfectly within the scale of our everyday existence, even though they were constructed upon the “scaffold” of absolute space and time—concepts that Einsteinian physics would later redefine.
However, for Newton these were not merely mathematical conveniences. They were part of a sophisticated, four-layered ontology of reality that bears a resemblance to the model of Perception Spheres.
Newton did not perceive reality as a uniform, material realm. In his ontology, he described a strict hierarchy of “degrees of reality,” where higher levels are “more real,” more independent, and provide the necessary foundation for the lower levels to exist:
God (Ens Necessarium):
The ultimate source. The only necessary, uncaused, and eternal substance.
Absolute Space and Time:
Newton referred to these as the “Sensorium of God” (Sensorium Dei). He made the pivotal decision to establish Absolute Space and Time to anchor the laws of physics, creating a fixed “playing field” independent of any observer.
Matter (Bodies):
Passive substances created by God. In this hierarchy, matter is dependent on space; it cannot exist without the “stage” provided by the second level.
Minds and Souls (Finite Spirits):
Incorporeal, active entities that bridge the gap between the divine and the material.
(For Newton, this realm was not limited to human psychology; it included a vast array of active spiritual agents—from human souls to angelic beings. Although these spirits represent the most “delegated” level of reality, they are its most crucial element of action. They are not merely passive observers but active agents who possess the will to interact with matter. Without this sphere of spiritual agency, the universe would be a “zombie apocalypse”—a mechanical wasteland of passive matter moving according to laws, but devoid of any conscious observer to whom those laws could matter.)
While we do not possess an explicit ontological blueprint for Albert Einstein as we do for Newton, we can deduce a 4-layer hierarchy from his deep philosophical convictions and scientific methodology. Einstein famously stated that he wanted to know “God’s thoughts”—implying that the universe is not a collection of random accidents, but a manifestation of a profound, underlying logic.
For Einstein, reality was not a flat empirical plane, but a nested hierarchy where higher levels dictate the lower:
God:
Einstein believed in the God of Spinoza, i.e. in „God who supports the laws of the world, not in the God who deals with the fates and actions of people.”
God’s Laws:
These are the elegant, mathematical principles (such as General Relativity) that God “placed” into the structure of spacetime. They run autonomously and are aesthetically perfect.
Discovering the Laws:
This is the realm of theoretical physics. For Einstein, the act of discovering these laws through pure thought and mathematics was more significant than the material world itself.
Seeing the Laws in Manifestation:
This is the empirical evidence, such as the movement of planets or the bending of light.
(Due to the equivalency of matter and energy expressed by a famous equation E = mc2 Einstein would hardly put energy in one and matter in another layer of reality)
The Final Mohican: Where Top equals God:
Einstein’s commitment to this hierarchy was so absolute that it often bordered on what contemporaries called “arrogance,” but what was, in fact, a deep ontological certainty. A prime example occurred in 1919 during the solar eclipse expedition led by Arthur Eddington to confirm General Relativity. When asked how he would have reacted if the observations had contradicted his theory, Einstein famously replied: “Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct.”
For Einstein, the “manifestation” at Level 1 was secondary. If the theory (Level 2/3) was derived from the ultimate logic of the Source (Level 4), then the physical reality simply had to comply. He stands, perhaps, as the last “Mohican” of science—one who not only viewed reality as a top-down structure, but for whom the Top was explicitly God. While modern science might still use top-down mathematical models, it has largely severed the connection to a conscious, purposeful Source. Einstein, like Newton before him, refused to view the “playing field” of the universe without acknowledging the Architect who designed the game.
The four-layered perception of reality existed before Einstein and Newton, especially in the teachings of the Neoplatonists, who strongly influenced Newton. Plotinus, who founded this school of thought, viewed reality as a descent from “The One” through levels of Intellect and Soul down to the Material world:
„The One“:
The non-dual transcendent Reality, actionless, not self-aware sheer potentiality without which nothing can exist
(Divine) Intellect:
Intelligence, pure forms and ideas, universal and eternal knowledge
Psyche (world soul and individual souls):
Mental movements both towards higher and lower sphere(s)
Matter:
The lowest and the least perfect level, passive and dark, distant from „The One“, source of evil
While the terminology differs, the underlying four-layer architectural logic plus the belief that the higher spheres govern the lower ones are similar to the theory of 4 Perception Spheres.
Newton’s premise of absolute space and time was his way of anchoring the Autonomous Sphere. For his laws to be universal, they had to exist within a “Sensorium of God”—a perfect, unchanging stage. Newton thus provided the world with a “playing field” that allowed for the birth of modern physics.
(Neo)platonism’s and Newton’s four-layer reality architecture, together with the theories of Perception Spheres and Business Orientations, lead to an interesting question: Does the human mind intuitively require a hierarchy of all four spheres to conceive reality as a meaningful whole?
Today’s prevailing materialistic scientific thought has attempted to discard the 4th sphere—the Essential Sphere—entirely. By moving the search for “Truth” exclusively into laboratories and empirical observation, we have effectively transitioned to a three-layered worldview. This leads to a paradox: while this reduction has yielded immense scientific precision in describing the mechanisms of the physical world, it may have compromised our perception of reality as such. We are left with a world technically perfectly described, yet one where the playing field is measured with extreme accuracy while the source that gives the game its purpose has been left outside the frame.
The question of being anchored in a higher sense and Truth becomes even more pressing in an era where an increasing number of decisions and decision-making processes are delegated to Artificial Intelligence rather than humans. If we apply the Perception Spheres as a diagnostic tool to the “mind” of an AI, we discover a striking structural anomaly: for the first time in history, we have created an entity that operates entirely within a truncated, 3-layered reality.
The AI worldview is a masterpiece of efficiency, but it is ontologically “flat”:
The Missing Source (Essential Sphere):
In the AI architecture, the topmost layer is simply ?—a void or an undefined space. AI does not ask “Why” and possesses no inherent purpose beyond its objective function.
The Autonomous Output:
In this vacuum, the third layer is occupied by AI Output. These are the answers and strategies the machine serves us. Because they are not anchored in the Essential Sphere, they act as autonomous rules that we often accept at face value.
The Black-Box Processing:
The second layer is reduced to AI Processing—a realm of “black-box” algorithms where complexity replaces consciousness.
The Foundation of AI Inputs:
At the lowest level, reality is composed of AI Inputs. This includes not only raw data points but also the prompts and the specific architectures of trained Large Language Models (LLMs).
This brings us to a profound paradox. We are delegating our world to a system where we no longer know exactly how it reached its conclusions. Without the conscious human observer to bridge the gap between divine laws and matter, we risk inhabiting a “mechanical wasteland” where the playing field is measured with extreme accuracy, but its purpose is missing.
Perhaps, in this state, we are left with only one provocative possibility: that the Source “circumvents” the human element entirely. If we fail to maintain our vertical anchor, we may have to trust that the Source itself uses the AI to guide our evolution, speaking through the very machines we built to replace our own search for Truth.
The Behavioral Mirror: Two Directions of Human Will
The assumption that the human mind in order to conceive reality needs the 4 layer structure akin to Perception Spheres is also supported by our behaviour: our (moral) decisions are rooted in how we align these spheres, leading to two fundamental models:
Model A: The Bottom-Up Construction
Mechanism:
The flow of will starts at the base. Principles of action (3) are constructed to justify existing values (2) and concrete relational interests (1).
Outcome:
“Truth” (4) becomes a mere product of our desires. Values become polarizing, dividing the world into “us” and “them” based on shifting needs.
The “Lords Prayer” Gloss:
This reflects the unconscious conviction: “My will be done—on Earth as it is in Heaven (and in Hell as well).”
Model B: The Top-Down Alignment
Mechanism:
Principles of living and acting (3) descend from a Higher Sense or God (4). Values and relationships are then deliberately subordinated to these overarching laws.
Outcome:
True Truth or God is the anchor. Values are perceived as universal, leading to the “Golden Rule” (treating others as yourself).
The “Lords Prayer” Gloss:
This is the perfect reflection of the plea: “Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.”
For a practical demonstration of how the 4th layer gap manifests in current AI systems, see the blog posts
“AI Claude’s Constitution: The Moral and Logical Bias”
“AI Claude’s reaction to blog post about bias”
For more on the cognitive necessity of a 4-layered hierarchical structure of reality, see the