The framework developed here is representational and structural. Cross-domain comparisons concern quotient–fiber architecture, residual multiplicity, predictive relevance, hierarchical organization, and contextual dependence. No claim is made that Penrose tilings, fractals, turbulent flows, and quantum systems share one physical mechanism, nor that the framework replaces the established mathematics of any of those domains. The word geometry is used in the broad structural sense of quotient, fiber, refinement, topology, and hierarchy. No universal smooth-manifold, metric, connection, or differential-geometric structure is assumed. Likewise, a realization is an element of whatever realization space has been specified by the model. The framework does not require that such realizations be interpreted as metaphysically fundamental states of the world. Questions of ontology arise only after additional domain-specific commitments are supplied.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Philip Lilien (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: