(This version has been superceeded, see v.3) Contemporary approaches to physical unification typically emphasize dynamical laws, interpretive frameworks, or information-theoretic reconstructions. Less attention is given to the structural constraints that determine which physical descriptions can remain coherent and stable under interaction, scale transition, and aggregation. This paper develops a constraint-first analysis of coherence, arguing that persistence and unification require restrictions on admissible physical continuations that are not reducible to dynamics alone. Within the framework referred to here as Quantum Coherence Theory (QCT), coherence is treated not as a fragile quantum resource but as a structural property governed by interaction geometry and constraint density. On this view, classical behavior emerges when accumulated constraints sufficiently narrow admissible evolution, while quantum behavior re-emerges when constraints are relaxed. The account does not introduce new dynamics, collapse mechanisms, or modifications of quantum formalism, but instead clarifies the conditions under which existing formalisms yield stable, unified descriptions. The resulting constraints distinguish QCT from observer-centric, intrinsic-collapse, and purely descriptive decoherence accounts, while remaining compatible with globally unitary dynamics. Formal analysis in later sections develops operational redundancy conditions, admissibility constraints on joint states, and rigidity-style arguments linking redundant record structure to the stability of classical descriptions. These results do not constitute a complete theory of unification, but they narrow the space of physically admissible descriptions and clarify the structural role of coherence in bridging quantum and classical regimes.
(This version has been superceeded, see v.3) Contemporary approaches to physical unification typically emphasize dynamical laws, interpretive frameworks, or information-theoretic reconstructions. Less attention is given to the structural constraints that determine which physical descriptions can remain coherent and stable under interaction, scale transition, and aggregation. This paper develops a constraint-first analysis of coherence, arguing that persistence and unification require restrictions on admissible physical continuations that are not reducible to dynamics alone. Within the framework referred to here as Quantum Coherence Theory (QCT), coherence is treated not as a fragile quantum resource but as a structural property governed by interaction geometry and constraint density. On this view, classical behavior emerges when accumulated constraints sufficiently narrow admissible evolution, while quantum behavior re-emerges when constraints are relaxed. The account does not introduce new dynamics, collapse mechanisms, or modifications of quantum formalism, but instead clarifies the conditions under which existing formalisms yield stable, unified descriptions. The resulting constraints distinguish QCT from observer-centric, intrinsic-collapse, and purely descriptive decoherence accounts, while remaining compatible with globally unitary dynamics. Formal analysis in later sections develops operational redundancy conditions, admissibility constraints on joint states, and rigidity-style arguments linking redundant record structure to the stability of classical descriptions. These results do not constitute a complete theory of unification, but they narrow the space of physically admissible descriptions and clarify the structural role of coherence in bridging quantum and classical regimes.
Viable Worlds Theory (VWT) presents a constraint-based framework for understanding why some worlds, systems, or environments are able to persist while others cannot. At its core, VWT is grounded in Quantum Coherence Theory (QCT), which provides a physical account of coherence, decoherence, and classical emergence without appeal to observer privilege, epistemic collapse, or branching ontologies. In QCT, the quantum–classical transition is treated not as a discontinuous event or interpretive choice, but as a continuous restriction of admissible configurations under increasing constraint density. Classical behavior emerges when alternative trajectories are no longer structurally viable, not because new laws are introduced, but because constraint accumulation renders deviation unsustainable. Decoherence is therefore understood as a structural phenomenon driven by environmental coupling, record formation, and invariant alignment, rather than as a measurement artifact or probabilistic selection. Viable Worlds Theory generalizes this insight beyond physics. It proposes that persistence under constraint is the primary explanatory primitive across domains. A “world” is defined not by belief, equilibrium, optimization, or narrative coherence, but by whether its structure can continue to exist under interaction, accumulated load, and environmental coupling. Many systems fail not because they are locally inconsistent or inefficient, but because they violate global viability conditions that only become visible under scale, interaction, or time. Within this framework, coherence is defined as the capacity of a system to maintain internal consistency relative to its own invariant structure while interacting with externally imposed invariants without loss of identity or stability. Where this condition fails, persistence fails with it—regardless of substrate or domain. Quantum systems provide the minimal physical test case for this claim, making QCT the foundational regime from which VWT is derived rather than merely illustrated. VWT explicitly distinguishes itself from Many-Worlds and other branching interpretations. While QCT allows for vast ontic possibility at the quantum level, it denies that unconstrained proliferation yields enduring worlds. Instead, only configurations that satisfy shared invariants and constraint compatibility can stabilize as persistent environments. The contribution of Viable Worlds Theory is not a new dynamics or a universal optimization principle, but a diagnostic framework for identifying why only certain structures—physical, informational, biological, cognitive, or engineered—are able to endure. By grounding world viability in quantum coherence and extending it through scale-agnostic constraint analysis, VWT offers a unified explanation for persistence, collapse, and the limits of admissible reality. (For ongoing discussion and additional material related to Coherence Science, Viable Worlds Theory (VWT), Quantum Coherence Theory (QCT), and Artificial Coherence Intelligence (ACI), see: r/CoherenceScience)
This work presents a continuous, constraint-based interpretive framework for physical systems that unifies quantum behavior, classical structure, and cosmological evolution without introducing new forces or modifying established equations. Rather than treating quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and general relativity as fundamentally separate domains, the paper proposes that these regimes can be understood as consistent descriptions of a shared underlying structure. The framework is built on three foundational elements: a non-geometric substrate (P_0) defining admissible configurations, interaction as the propagation of constraint, and geometry as the macroscopic record of accumulated interaction. Within this perspective, physical structure emerges through a continuous progression: distinctions enable gradients, gradients enable interaction, interaction accumulates as constraint, and constraint stabilizes into persistent configurations. The quantum–classical transition is interpreted as a continuous increase in interaction-induced constraint, while spacetime curvature reflects the large-scale organization of these interactions. The framework does not replace existing theories, but instead provides a unified conceptual interpretation that remains fully consistent with established physics across known regimes. Its value lies in clarifying relationships between domains, offering a continuous ontology of physical systems, and suggesting potential directions for further formalization.
This preprint presents a foundations-level analysis of physical description based on structural dependency rather than dynamical construction. Quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, and relativistic spacetime are treated as effective regimes arising under different structural conditions, rather than as competing ontologies. The analysis identifies persistence under interaction, irreversible constraint accumulation, stable relational structure, and interaction as minimal requirements for physical behaviour. Collapse is characterised as irreversible loss of compatibility between alternative continuations, without appeal to observers, stochastic dynamics, or additional postulates. Time is treated as structural ordering induced by exclusion, rather than as a primitive background parameter. No new dynamics are proposed and no empirically successful theories are modified. The aim is to clarify explanatory dependencies that underlie familiar physical regimes and to dissolve persistent foundational problems that arise when regime-level descriptions are misidentified as foundations.
What are the physical conditions required for agency? Recent work has rigorously shown that purely unitary, coherence-preserving quantum dynamics are insufficient to support deliberation, comparison of counterfactual actions, and reliable action selection. These results establish a genuine no-go theorem for agency in a strictly quantum-coherent regime. This paper provides a structural completion of that no-go result. Rather than challenging its correctness, the analysis identifies the underlying assumption on which it rests: that unitarity alone is sufficient as an admissibility criterion for decision endpoints. We show that this assumption is incomplete. Working within the Tier-0 closure framework, physical lawfulness is characterized by closure-stable fixed points selected by structural constraints rather than by unconstrained dynamical evolution. Within this framework, coherent quantum states may function as intermediate computational or representational states but are excluded as lawful endpoints for records, decisions, and control. Applying closure stability to quantum systems yields a classical decision subspace without introducing new dynamics, observer-dependent postulates, or interpretation-specific assumptions. The paper further shows that agency requires a closure-stable internal selection process capable of consistent expected-utility comparison. Imposing closure compatibility rigidly fixes the standard quadratic Born probability rule as the only weighting compatible with stability, representation-independence, and admissibility-preserving re-expression. Together, these results integrate agency into the same structural framework that accounts for quantum measurement and probability. The absence of agency in purely quantum-coherent models is shown to reflect an under-constrained admissibility regime rather than a fundamental limitation of quantum theory. Lawful agency emerges as a closure-stable property of coupled agent–world dynamics, fully consistent with standard quantum mechanics. This work clarifies the physical limits of purely quantum models of decision, sharpens existing no-go arguments, and provides a mathematically explicit foundation for agency grounded in structural admissibility rather than interpretation.
This paper presents a continuous structural ontology in which quantum mechanics, field theory, and general relativity are interpreted as regime-specific descriptions of a shared underlying system. Rather than introducing new forces or modifying established equations, the framework identifies three minimal and persistent structural elements across physical regimes: admissible configuration space, propagating constraint, and geometry as the macroscopic record of accumulated interaction. The work is intentionally interpretive rather than revisionary. It proposes that physical evolution can be understood as the propagation of constraint over admissible configurations, with increasing restriction giving rise to stable structure, classical behavior, and geometric curvature. Established mathematical formalisms—including Hilbert space, field equations, and general relativity—are preserved and reinterpreted within a common structural language. This framework aims to improve conceptual continuity across quantum, field, and geometric domains while remaining fully consistent with existing empirical results. It does not claim a complete formal unification, but instead offers a minimal ontological foundation that may clarify relationships between currently distinct theoretical descriptions. This paper forms part of the broader Communication Matrix research program.
This paper develops a relational framework that reinterprets quantum mechanics as the behavior of a continuous generative field governed by the propagation and resolution of orientation under constraint. In this account, superposition reflects unresolved constraint geometry, collapse arises when constraint stabilizes and forces coherence to resolve, tunneling emerges from the propagation of constrained orientation through regions of elevated constraint density, and entanglement results from shared constraint boundaries that enforce joint coherence resolution across separation. Probability is reframed as coherence‑weighting across unresolved resolution paths, and the classical limit appears when constraint geometry becomes sufficiently stable to produce deterministic updates. The wavefunction is interpreted as a mathematical encoding of coherence across constraint geometry rather than a physical object or epistemic state. This unified mechanism dissolves the conceptual divides between classical, quantum, electromagnetic, and energetic behavior, situating all physical phenomena within a single operator framework grounded in the continuous structure of the relational field. The result is a coherent, mechanism‑level redefinition of quantum mechanics that integrates its core phenomena without invoking discontinuities, intrinsic randomness, or dual ontologies.