PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 25, 20260 citationsOpen Access

The Shadow Price of Distinguishability, Volume 2: What Is Structural, What Is Conditional, and What Cannot Be Tested

View Full Paper
ASAlex Shvets

Key Points

  • This work enhances a prior framework linking operational codes to shadow prices of distinguishability.
  • Revises and strengthens previous theoretical models using closed-form analysis.
  • Utilizes 1100 parameter configurations and 100 stochastic seeds for simulations.
  • Implements sensitivity analysis and prediction horizon invariance evaluations.
  • Demonstrates structural tunnel vision through universal monotonicity under agentive load.
  • Identifies three dissociation regimes affecting inference accuracy.
  • Falsifies earlier claims about universal concavity in degradation curves.

Abstract

A formal framework in which phenomenal state is identified with an endogenous operational code and two conjugate shadow prices of unrealized distinguishability — the cost of not knowing at the moment of action (Πact) and the residual unpredictability of the world (Πpred) — under a hard resource constraint m + k = B. Volume 1 (18 pages, 32 references) establishes the framework (AFF quotient, PIP* postulate), derives closed-form consequences in three toy models, and proposes three falsifiable human protocols with specific numerical inequalities. Published as Zenodo DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18745079. Volume 2 (23 pages, 35 references) revises and strengthens Volume 1 through closed-form analysis over 1100 parameter configurations and 100 stochastic seeds. Key results: (i) Theorem 1 proves universal monotonicity of nuance degradation under agentive load via Blackwell ordering — tunnel vision is structural, not parameter-dependent; (ii) a generalized dissociation theorem identifies three regimes (competitive, pure, and boundary dissociation) depending on hint informativeness, replacing the narrow R(D) > 1 statement; (iii) sensitivity analysis shows curvature of degradation is parameter-conditional, falsifying the earlier universal concavity claim; (iv) prediction horizon invariance across H = 1..10 confirms the H = 1 choice is non-arbitrary; (v) 100-seed growing-budget simulation with Wilson confidence intervals exhibits a sharp survival phase transition; (vi) MDP-homomorphism zombie divergence theorem with explicit scope caveat; (vii) coherence table across five phenomenological facts and six competing theories; (viii) two new sections on underdetermination of bridging principles (PIP* included) and a viability no-go result.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Alex Shvets (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699e91d7f5123be5ed04fa1ehttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18750006
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper