What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim is to develop a framework for identity and recoverability while preserving dependency discipline.

June 17, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Admissible Persistence: A Dependency-Preserving Framework for Identity, Recoverability, and Physical Representation

Key Points

The aim is to develop a framework for identity and recoverability while preserving dependency discipline.
Introduces the admissibility constraint C₀ to define specifications and structural necessities.
Develops a persistence kernel to evaluate identity and maintenance of structure in systems.
Explores applications involving dependency and computation as state transformation.
Establishes that persistence can continue as long as admissible conditions are met, enabling identity-preserving transitions.
Identifies structural needs and empirical programs for testing dependency interfaces and representations.
Proposes avenues for future model development based on dependency-preserving recoverability.

Abstract

Admissible Persistence presents a dependency-preserving structural framework for identity, persistence, recoverability, representation, physical interpretation, computation, alignment, and observer systems. The manuscript begins from the primitive admissibility constraint: C₀: a starting condition cannot presuppose the conditions required for its own specification. From C₀, the framework derives specification, distinction, structure, operativity, identity, persistence, admissible continuation, constraint, elimination, history, constraint pressure, expressive capacity, and the persistence kernel: Ω = (I, A, E, χ, ℰ) where I is identity evaluation, A is admissible continuation, E is append-only elimination history, χ is constraint pressure or constraint density, and ℰ is expressive capacity. The kernel obeys the continuation-collapse law: A(Ω,H) ≠ ∅ ⇒ τA(Ω,H) = ∅ ⇒ κ A system continues by admissible identity-preserving transition while admissible continuation exists. When admissible continuation is exhausted, collapse, recovery, restriction, repair, reduction, or defined termination is mandatory. The manuscript distinguishes structural necessities, structural theorems, representational bridges, empirical programs, and open problems. Its purpose is not to claim empirical finality or derive all physical constants, but to preserve dependency discipline: every claim must be derived, declared, represented as a bridge, treated as empirical, left open, or collapsed. The framework develops applications and bridges involving finite recoverable dependency, vacuum support, computation as persistent state transformation, measurement as recoverable selection, quantum branch weighting, locality, gauge structure, constraint-density gravity, alignment, ObserverCore, reactive matter, executable persistence, and explicit refutation criteria. Closure is understood as dependency-preserving recoverability, not as finality. The manuscript remains open to formal criticism, empirical testing of bridge structures, and future model-specific development.

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper