on coherence and constraints  ^{[active draft]  #tbc}

ours is a coherent universe

—what does that mean?

I mean coherent in the colloquial sense: consistent throughout; plurally concordant; joined-up, aligned.

In our universe, things happen for a reason. We may not always know what that reason is – but there is always one, just waiting to be found.

Consider :

1. That event B, happens for a reason, A
2. That reason A, is also an event (and one which occurred earlier in time that event B), and
3. That events A, B, relate to one another – A caused B

We might then say :

• That event B, exists within the space-of-all potential (possible futures) of event A
• (Or observe retrospectively) that event A
  • Exists within the space-of-all priors, of event B
  • Satisfies the space-of-necessary priors, for event B, to occur
• That event A, was sufficient to cause event B
• That event A, necessarily caused event B

However described, universal events relate in specific ways, which when taken together, align every single event throughout the history of our universe, to a coherent whole: consistent throughout; plurally concordant; joined-up, aligned.

We might deduce further, that in a coherent universe, anything cannot happen – only specific things, which exist within the space-of-all possible future events, of the space-of-all present circumstances, at each increment, all the way back ¹.

constraint

in a coherent universe, what can happen, at every sequential incremental mutation throughout time, is finite

territory

In a coherent universe, the space-of-all possible future events, is finite; limited; constrained

Constraint is an implicit characteristic of a coherent universe, and all parts thereof.

Constraint characteristics are a necessary prior, for all that we observe, and might observe, in our universe, in any moment.

map

territory aligns; our maps ought to

where we observe that universal events align, so ought our observations, measurements and models of the same. where we model phenomena, so too ought we model constraints – and it is by satisfaction of modelled constraint characteristics by which we might plot and validate our efforts in modelling anything are consistent throughout; plurally concordant; joined-up, aligned ²

intuition

—but what are we modelling when we model constraints?

Constraints in-effect, map a substrate of possibility-space within which all universal phenomena exist, by conformance in some manner

The relationship between a substrate of possibility-space, and material universal phenomena, is a bit like the relationship between a fuzzy string search, and the correct result. Fuzzy match parameters accumulate, to increase specificity of any fuzzy search. An individual parameter in isolation may appear far too vague to be useful; but together, even a fuzzy search comprised of only individually vague parameters, might be sufficient to result in a precise, circumstantially useful, outcome.

Constraints are like heuristics, but for territory {phenomenal: construction; composition; interaction, and; mutation}

good and bad complexity

—this fuzzy substrate sounds like adding more complexity to an already overwhelmingly complex problem-space! how does this possibly demonstrate that our universe is simpler than we commonly imagine?!

From the perspective of human experience, we more commonly consider heuristics in the context of pattern matching stimuli – to isolate pertinent details from a bulk of redundant noise.

Cognition is abstract, and all details are contrived in some manner. So too then, is complexity. Isolated complexity is both abstract, and fundamentally, principally, contrived.

where constraints map a substrate of possibility-space (which aligns events of all universal phenomena), we are being provided clues to implied, innate, universal characteristics – then heuristics – which isolate pertinent possibilities, from a bulk of redundant impossibilities. clues to transform isolated contrived complexity, to coherent innate complexity ³

Unnoticed or irreconcilable impossible-states distract us.

Intentionally adding perceptible (and formal) complexity, to eliminate imperceptible (and therefore informal) complexity, allows us to systematically reason around unnoticed perceptive obstacles. Reducing the distraction of impossible-states from our understanding of universal phenomena, simplifies ongoing perception, and cognition ⁴.

puzzle-space

constraint heuristics transform open problem-space, to a closed puzzle-space

Constraint heuristics reduce open problem-space, by eliminating impossibility-space, from possibility-space.

Though, to do so accurately, constraint heuristics cannot exist in isolation.

Consider a common jigsaw puzzle, whereby each tile has a boundary which interfaces other tiles. Typically, each tile has a sufficiently unique boundary shape, or profile, which aligns with specific peers. If every tile in the same puzzle had the same profile, the task of aligning tiles into a coherent form would be complicated.

Tiles might be less complex, but the overall puzzle would be more complicated.

By increasing the complexity of individual tiles, the overall puzzle is simplified. How? Jigsaw puzzles with tiles which have unique profiles, have fewer overall possible solutions. Each tile might only align with actual peers. Tile relationships are constrained; constraints align; and the more constraints which apply to a puzzle, and the fewer states-of-all possible, the simpler the puzzle.

---

#tbc

formal delta

#tbc

Like all distinct universal phenomena within a coherent universe, each must exist as an incremental delta to prior forms. Which sounds complicated to model over the expanse of the universe.

Helpfully, the nature of accruable constraints, is incremental precision – each constraint eliminates a single dimension of impossibility, from an open space-of-all. Precision and detail is applied and accrued, iteratively – just like an artist sketching an outline, before rendering increasing detail on subsequent strokes.

Initial constraints, however imprecise in isolation, are still valid.

• Applied retrospectively, constraints may invalidate perceptive obstacles
  • Which includes decomposition
  • To fractionally account for partial constituents of presumed wholes

joined-up like

our universe is simpler than commonly understood, because ours is a coherent universe, and in a coherent universe, -anything- -cannot- happen

In-fact, our universe is simpler than is -possible- to understand by the isolated scientific disciplines of an ununified scientific endeavour – because isolated disciplines lack sufficient extrinsic constraints to systematically reason around unnoticed perceptive obstacles, and reduce the distractions of impossible-states, from respective understandings.

#tbc

---

Reference :

constraint dependency

constraint prototype