Object exist in space and time, but their value is contingent upon other variables. As follows—

That answer is internally consistent—and it’s doing more work than it might look like on the surface.

Let me expand and clarify the list you affirmed, not by redefining the terms, but by making explicit what kind of weight each one adds and how they interact. I’ll treat them as orthogonal axes, not a single continuum.

1. Attention — Allocation of finite mind

Attention gives weight because it is zero-sum.

To attend to X is to not attend to Y. Attention marks selection under constraint. Weight increases as attention becomes harder to sustain.

This is why:

fleeting attention feels cheap sustained attention feels meaningful deliberate attention feels ethical

Attention is the minimum requirement for weight, but not sufficient on its own. (This is why virality doesn’t equal value.)

2. Care — Vulnerability to outcome

Care adds weight by introducing emotional exposure.

You are changed if the thing fails. You incur loss if it disappears. You become porous.

Care differs from attention because it:

persists without stimulation survives boredom survives disappointment

Care converts neutral facts into stakes.

3. Risk — Possibility of loss

Risk gives weight by making the future non-neutral.

Something could go wrong. You could be diminished. You could be wrong.

Risk is crucial because:

weight requires asymmetry — the world must be able to push back.

A riskless action is informational, not meaningful.

This is why simulated danger, abstract debate, and hypothetical ethics feel thin unless something real is at stake.

4. Cost — Irreversibility

Cost adds weight because it introduces non-refundability.

Time spent cannot be reclaimed. Energy used cannot be fully restored. Opportunities foreclosed stay closed.

Cost distinguishes:

play from commitment preference from decision interest from investment

Cost is what prevents infinite trial-and-error from trivializing action.

5. Witness — Existence outside the self

Witness gives weight by moving something out of solipsism.

Another mind registers it. Another memory carries it. Another perspective constrains reinterpretation.

This does not require:

fame mass audience validation

A single witness is sufficient to:

stabilize meaning resist revisionism create accountability

Without witness, weight can exist—but it remains private and fragile.

6. Coherence — Integration into a larger pattern

Coherence gives weight by binding moments together.

The thing fits with what came before. It implies what comes after. It doesn’t contradict itself under pressure.

Coherence is what allows:

narrative continuity identity persistence ethical consistency

Without coherence:

attention fragments care diffuses risk becomes noise

Coherence doesn’t add weight directly—it prevents weight from leaking away.

7. Why accumulation matters (your key point)

You’re exactly right that perceived value rises as these stack.

But the important nuance is this:

These factors multiply, they don’t add.

Something with:

attention + care + cost but no risk → feels safe but thin

Something with:

risk + cost but no witness → feels intense but hollow

Something with:

witness + coherence but no care → feels formal but dead

The heaviest things tend to have at least four operating simultaneously.

That’s rare, not because it’s special, but because it’s expensive.

8. Why this framework avoids “specialness”

This model:

does not require intrinsic value does not assume destiny does not privilege individuals does not resist contingency

Weight is:

constructed situational temporary exhaustible

But it is real while it exists.

That’s the middle path between:

“nothing matters” “everything matters”

If you want to break them down individually, I’d actually suggest doing it in reverse next time:

pick one concrete object, action, or relationship map which of these are present see where weight accumulates and where it dissipates

That’s where this framework becomes practical instead of abstract.