Part of The exploration series
EXPLORATION 04 · DEVELOPMENT
Within My Big TOE, the developmental direction is called lowering entropy: roughly, fewer fear-driven, strongly self-protective choices and higher-quality Intent. HSP cannot measure that MBT claim, but it can explore what such a direction might look like in the human system.
Thought experiment, not an HSP premise. In ordinary language: less unnecessary protection, more coherence, better learning from feedback and more choice space for better choices.
Exploration 04 · development
Within My Big TOE, development is described with the term lowering entropy: roughly, a movement away from fear-driven, strongly self-protective choices and toward higher-quality Intent and greater care for others.
HSP cannot establish whether consciousness literally has entropy, cannot measure that entropy and does not need this MBT claim in order to remain useful.
But we can ask a practical question: if that developmental direction is meaningful, what might it look like in the human system?
Reading rule: after this introduction we mainly use ordinary language: less unnecessary protection, more coherence, better learning from feedback and more genuinely available choice.
An MBT quality term, not an HSP score
In MBT, Campbell uses entropy as a measure of consciousness quality: higher entropy represents lower quality in his model; lower entropy represents higher quality.
He connects that direction, among other things, with fear versus love: more fear-driven, self-focused Intent on one side; more care, cooperation and other-focus on the other.
HSP does not need to adopt that as a measurable quantity.
For this exploration we translate only the direction: less unnecessary fear and protection → more coherence and learning capacity → more room for a higher-quality choice.
No pseudo-precision
The word entropy has precise meanings in physics and information theory. Those definitions cannot simply be pasted onto a human psychological system.
So we do not use “lowering entropy” here as a technical HSP term or as a number that can be calculated from behavior.
The useful translation is more modest: less unnecessary internal noise and contradiction, less rigid protection, better calibration and a greater ability to learn from feedback.
We can examine those things without pretending that we are literally measuring MBT entropy.
Translation to the human interface
In HSP terms, a comparable developmental direction might look roughly like this:
| More constrained | More developed / coherent |
|---|---|
| Quickly reading input as threat | Better distinction between signal and prediction |
| Rigid operational rules | More context-sensitive rules |
| High unnecessary activation | Activation better matched to the situation |
| Protection automatically gets priority | Protection when needed, choice when possible |
| Narrower choice space | More operationally accessible alternatives |
| Defending against or distorting feedback | Using feedback to update the model |
Not “becoming perfectly calm”, but becoming less unnecessarily constrained.
Fear changes processing
MBT places fear at the center of development. HSP can give that a sober human translation: threat prediction changes how the system processes information.
More threat can increase activation, narrow attention, shift resources and reduce choice space. That makes protective output more likely.
Fear is therefore not simply “bad”. It is first information and protection. The developmental question is whether that protection is still proportional to what is actually needed here and now.
The goal is therefore not to stop feeling fear. It is to lose all other options less often because of unnecessary fear.
Not everything has to fight at once
A system can carry several rules at the same time that work against each other.
“I want closeness and openness.”
“If I am vulnerable, I will be hurt. Keep distance.”
Or:
“I want to choose independently.”
“If someone is disappointed, I have done something wrong.”
Development can mean that such contradictions become visible and old rules no longer have to win automatically.
Coherence does not mean never having inner conflict. It means the system spends less energy on obsolete rules that repeatedly produce the same collision.
Prediction is not reality
A human system has to predict. The problem is not that it predicts, but how well those predictions still fit current reality.
Development can therefore mean something very practical:
A better model is not a model that is always right. It is a model that is better calibrated and more correctable.
A system that can learn
A system can look intelligent and still update poorly.
A more updateable system can tolerate discomfort without immediately explaining all contradictory information away:
Development ≠ becoming increasingly right. Development may mean that your system becomes better at processing the fact that it was wrong.
More functional freedom
If activation, capacity and rules determine which options are operationally available, then choice space becomes a logical developmental indicator.
Not: how many choices exist in theory?
But: how many relevant choices can the system still see and execute under real conditions?
may, over time, shift toward:
That is not absolute freedom. It is more operational freedom than before.
Do not look only at output
If MBT considers the quality of Intent important, visible behavior alone is insufficient.
Helping can come from care, but also from fear of needing to be needed. A boundary can come from clarity, but also from a wish to punish. Silence can be wise, but also avoidant.
A useful question therefore becomes: what is this choice, beneath the visible action, actually trying to achieve or prevent?
A developmental direction would then not only be “better behavior”, but fewer choices primarily driven by unnecessary fear, control or self-protection.
Operational, not romantic
Campbell calls the other side of this developmental direction becoming love. That can quickly sound vague or spiritual.
For this exploration we use a more sober translation: not one permanent emotion, but choices in which care for both self and other remains more available without control, fear or ownership determining the direction.
Contributing without needing to own the outcome or the other person.
Being honest without using humiliation as a tool.
Being able to say no without turning the other person into an enemy.
Acknowledging impact without making learning depend on self-attack.
“Love” is therefore not treated as an emotional score, but as a possible direction in the quality of Intent and choice.
Protection can look very social
This distinction is essential. Pleasing, rescuing, saying yes to everything and avoiding conflict can look loving while also emerging from fear.
A more loving choice can sometimes mean:
The question is therefore not: “did my behavior look nice?” but: “what Intent and what degree of free choice sat underneath it?”
Not every constraint is a consciousness problem
An important HSP correction to any development philosophy is that the human system also simply has a body.
Sleep deprivation, pain, illness, hormones, sensory overload, prolonged stress and context can change capacity and choice space.
Not every poor choice is therefore evidence of “high entropy” or poor Intent. Sometimes the interface is simply operating under heavy biological or situational constraints.
Development therefore also means learning to recognize when reflection is possible — and when recovery, safety or reduced load must come first.
Observable signals, not a spiritual score
You do not need to judge “how loving” or “how low-entropy” you are. You can look for changes closer to the human interface.
The pattern is not perfection. The pattern is a little more freedom, flexibility and updateability over time.
The trap
Even “lowering entropy” can become a new way of putting yourself under pressure.
The development ideal then produces new threat, shame and rigidity itself.
A no-BS developmental direction is smaller: see more clearly what is happening, fight less unnecessarily with what is already there, and improve the conditions under which more choice becomes possible.
Responsibility & repair
A developing system still makes poor predictions, becomes activated and can hurt other people.
So quality is not only visible in the first choice. It can also appear in what happens afterwards:
Sometimes the better choice only appears after the wrong one. That too can be part of development.
In one direction
If we translate MBT's idea of lowering entropy to the human interface, it is not about a person who never feels afraid, angry or activated again.
What MBT calls becoming love is not translated here as a permanent state, but as a direction in which care, truth, boundaries, responsibility and respect for autonomy become more often available from free Intent rather than fear or control.
Not: becoming a perfect human. But: becoming a system in which better choices are genuinely available more often.
MBT source and analytical boundary
The formal MBT terms entropy, fear, Intent and love come from Thomas Campbell's My Big TOE model.
The translation into HSP terms such as prediction, activation, capacity, operational rules, choice space and updateability is our analytical bridge. It is not a formal MBT definition of entropy.
The operational description of becoming love on this page is also a working interpretation for this exploration, not a scientific scale and not an HSP premise.
Continue the thought experiment
Understanding a developmental direction is different from being able to work with it in practice.
Can you train to choose more freely more often? →
Thought experiment: exploratory, not an HSP premise.