This theoretical paper explores system collapse mechanisms in complex systems, suggesting new perspectives on agency and autonomy.
System collapse has conventionally been regarded as a contingent failure or stochastic anomaly. Thispaper argues that, under constraints of effective dimensionality saturation, collapse manifests not as a randomevent but as a structural inevitability: the state space becomes geometrically exhausted prior to the criticalpoint, leaving no residual redundancy to enable external regulation. Drawing upon the heuristic structuralcorrespondence with the Kakeya conjecture, we demonstrate that the classical cybernetic presupposition—thatan external agent can reverse system trajectories through intervention—loses its ontological foundation oncethis geometric necessity is acknowledged.Against this backdrop, we propose a redeffnition of agency: action persists not as a force of reversal,but as resonance—the highest order of navigation. Through distributed perceptual weighting mechanisms(exempliffed by the CUD framework), the system is provided with boundary signals rather than target states,allowing it to autonomously converge upon safe attractors. Grounded in empirical validation from CUD causalinterventions, our argument proceeds across three dimensions: (1) an ontology of geometric necessity beyondself-organized criticality; (2) a functionalist epistemology of system perception; and (3) a social epistemologyof decentralized agency.Ultimately, this “resonance-over-resistance” paradigm yields a novel axiological claim: accessibility functions as a core epistemic virtue in the evaluation of scientiffc theories. The most profound laws are those which,once revealed, serve as tools for public reasoning rather than instruments of technocratic domination. Thisaccessibility does not require mastery of the underlying formalism, but only the capacity to grasp and applythe core structural insight. This constitutes the fundamental democratic character of scientiffc knowledge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
栎洋 丁 (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: