PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 6, 20260 citationsOpen Access

The Level Mismatch: Why bounded systems mistake labels for identity — and the discipline that repairs the mistake

View Full Paper
DBDevin Bostick

Key Points

  • This paper aims to illuminate how structural failures in bounded systems lead to misconceptions about identity persistence across disciplines.
  • Examines the role of identity-bearing units, transformations, and governance in identity persistence.
  • Discusses underlying theories like the persistence calculus and finite-regime capacity theory.
  • Highlights the importance of invariant-finding and the problem of identity across diverse contexts.
  • Identifies that many persistence problems arise from declaring sameness at one level while the governing factors exist at another.
  • Introduces concepts such as selective persistence and the role of meaning in sustaining identity.
  • Argues for the necessity of structural coherence in bounded systems to function effectively amidst change.

Abstract

Abstract The Level Mismatch is a capstone orientation paper for the Identity-Persistence Program. It argues that many ancient and modern persistence problems arise from a single structural failure: sameness is declared at one level while the recurrence that actually governs behavior lives at another. A river, ship, organism, institution, database record, pharmaceutical solid form, or AI model may retain a stable label while its governing recurrence drifts beyond the declared bound. The paper does not introduce new formal results. Instead, it explains why the underlying forcing theorem, persistence calculus, finite-regime capacity theory, and coding theorem are repeatedly needed across philosophy, science, cognition, institutions, and engineering. It frames identity persistence as a declared-regime problem involving identity-bearing units, admissible transformations, quotients, invariants, governance, drift bounds, and explicit verdicts: PERSIST, BREAK, BRANCH, UNDEFINED, and REGIME-CHANGE. The paper also develops the ideas of selective persistence, meaning as what survives forgetting, purpose as directional selection over possible continuations, and discovery as invariant-finding followed by compression. Its central claim is structural rather than ontological: bounded systems require persistence structure to act coherently under change, but this does not settle final ontology.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Devin Bostick (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a23baa771a5da9775e765fahttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20534648
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper