Theoretical analysis derives physical opacity conditions in preonic aggregates, indicating a computable basis for complexity.
The Physicality of Scales (P6) derives QGD's object hierarchy from a behavioral criterion silent, by design, on internal organization; Behaviorally Free, Ontologically Determined (P50) needs exactly the distinction P6 does not draw, grounding epistemic free will in a Generator/Selector coupling available only "for a sufficiently complex" preonic aggregate — a condition stated, not derived. This paper derives it. Two finite, computable measures are defined directly on an aggregate's binding graph and P41's cardinality machinery: structural differentiation, Ξ(A), via a swap-and-compare test on the existing state-transition equation, and generative compression, κ(A,n), as the ratio of reachable to Generator-narrowed configuration counts. A four-condition threshold is then derived, rather than assumed, for when a Selector is physically opaque to its own Generator: topological absence of surplus binding channels, and a capacity bound extending P16's Landauer-grounded physical constructivism from construction cost to discrimination capacity, closing both brute-force and compact-rule routes to reconstruction. The result recovers P50's decision-locus/mere-aggregation distinction at the network scale as a special case of the same criterion, yields falsifiable structural predictions independent of numerical grounding, and is compared against Integrated Information Theory and algorithmic complexity, sharing IIT's differentiation/integration structure without its unbounded partition search or its lattice-architecture requirement, and sharing none of Kolmogorov complexity's unbounded-domain idealization already ruled unphysical by P16. One technical question is left explicitly open: whether partial, short-of-exact predictive self-access defeats the opacity criterion, a question this paper connects to Ismael's treatment of counterpredictive devices rather than resolving. A non-physical precursor to the Generator/Selector structure, from an unpublished 1998–99 manuscript by the present author under a prior surname, is noted and explicitly restricted to conceptual priority, carrying no argumentative weight in the physical derivation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daniel Burnstein (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: