Skip to content
Cohesion Dynamics (CD)

Phase D: Constructor Emergence Visualization

This page presents trace-based visualizations of constructor emergence regimes validated by the CDRS (Cohesion Dynamics Research Simulator).

Overview

The visualizations below are not live simulations. They are deterministic replays of precomputed traces from validated research phases.

This distinction is critical:

  • What you see: A continuum projection of substrate dynamics
  • What it represents: Validated emergence regimes from the CDRS
  • What it is not: The ontological substrate itself

Conceptual Positioning

These demos illustrate didactic projections of deeper substrate processes.

The visualizations show:

  • Continuum admission — which configurations persist
  • Constructor formation — how composites stabilize
  • Hierarchical emergence — meta-structures from precedence

They are communication tools, not the theory itself.

Interactive Demo

Loading trace data...

Scenario Descriptions

1. Continuum Admission (Phase 10)

Research Context: Phase 10 established W-gated coupling as the foundation for selectivity.

What You See:

  • Regions with compatible W-states (green borders) interact
  • Regions with incompatible W-states (red borders) remain isolated
  • No stable composites form without precedence

Mechanisms Active:

  • ✅ W-gating
  • ❌ Precedence selection
  • ❌ Meta-precedence

Key Finding: Selectivity alone is insufficient for persistence. Regions interact, but phase relationships drift.

Continuum Class: E-class (exclusion-based filtering)

2. Stable Constructors (Phase 11)

Research Context: Phase 11 discovered that precedence selection alone achieves 31.3× improvement in composite lifetime.

What You See:

  • Regions converge to phase-locked states
  • Composites (labeled C0, C1, etc.) form and persist
  • Phase differences minimize within composites
  • No hierarchy emerges (single-scale precedence)

Mechanisms Active:

  • ✅ W-gating
  • ✅ Precedence selection (minimize local mismatch)
  • ❌ Meta-precedence

Key Finding: Deterministically choosing admissible moves that minimize mismatch creates stable binding without energy conservation or inertia.

Continuum Class: C-class (constructive)

Reference: See research/constructor-emergence-simulator/experiments/PHASE_11_RESULTS.md

3. Constructor Replication (Phase 12)

Research Context: Phase 12 tested whether Phase 11 composites exhibit constructor properties (maintenance, reproduction, function).

What You See:

  • An initial template composite forms (left cluster)
  • Nearby unstructured regions (right side) gradually organize
  • New composites form with similar phase structure
  • Template remains intact during replication

Mechanisms Active:

  • ✅ W-gating
  • ✅ Precedence selection
  • ✅ Template-driven structural influence

Key Finding:

  • 100% self-repair after perturbations
  • 100% template replication with structural similarity
  • 91.7% functional preservation under environmental change

Continuum Class: C-class (constructive with replication)

Reference: See research/constructor-emergence-simulator/experiments/PHASE_12_RESULTS.md

4. Hierarchical Constructors (Phase 14)

Research Context: Phase 14 introduced meta-precedence — precedence operating across multiple scales simultaneously.

What You See:

  • Two separate composites form initially
  • Composites begin coordinating as a meta-structure
  • Larger circles indicate higher hierarchy levels
  • Composite-of-composites emerge

Mechanisms Active:

  • ✅ W-gating
  • ✅ Precedence selection (λ_micro = 0.1)
  • ✅ Meta-precedence (λ_meta = 0.9)

Key Finding: Two-scale precedence enables hierarchical organization. At λ_meta = 0.9, hierarchy formation increased by 29,500% compared to micro-only precedence.

Continuum Class: C-class (hierarchical)

Reference: See research/constructor-emergence-simulator/experiments/PHASE_14_RESULTS.md

Visualization Legend

Region Appearance

  • Circle color (when “Show Phases” enabled): Hue represents phase φ ∈ [0, 2π)
  • Circle size: Larger circles indicate higher hierarchy levels
  • Border color:
    • Green: W-state compatible (W > 0)
    • Red: W-state incompatible (W < 0)
  • Gray fill: Inactive region (inadmissible to continuum)

Composite Indicators

  • Dashed lines: Connect regions belonging to the same composite
  • “C” labels: Composite ID numbers
  • Color grouping: Regions in same composite share hue when “Show Composites” enabled

Controls

  • Play/Pause: Animate through trace frames
  • Step: Advance one frame
  • Slider: Jump to specific time point
  • Show Phases: Toggle phase-based coloring
  • Show Composites: Toggle composite membership visualization
  • Show Hierarchy: Toggle hierarchy level indicators

Projection vs Ontology

This Demo Is:

  • ✅ A projection of validated substrate dynamics
  • ✅ A visualization aid for understanding emergence regimes
  • ✅ A trace replay from authoritative simulator outputs
  • ✅ A didactic tool for communicating research findings

This Demo Is NOT:

  • ❌ The substrate itself
  • ❌ A complete ontological description
  • ❌ A live physics engine
  • ❌ An interactive sandbox for arbitrary parameters

Why This Matters

The substrate operates at a deeper level than visualizable projections. What you see here is:

  1. Continuum-admitted configurations (not substrate proposals)
  2. Rendered phase relationships (not the full W-tolerance structure)
  3. Projected composites (not the underlying coherence dynamics)

The demos show what emerges, not how it emerges at the substrate level.

Research Programme Context

These visualizations correspond to specific phases in the Constructor Emergence Programme:

PhaseFocusStatusDemo Scenario
Phase 10Selectivity via W-gating✅ CompleteContinuum Admission
Phase 11Persistence via precedence✅ CompleteStable Constructors
Phase 12Constructor properties✅ CompleteReplication
Phase 13Hierarchy diagnosis✅ Complete(Analysis phase)
Phase 14Meta-precedence & hierarchy✅ CompleteHierarchical Constructors

For complete research documentation, see:

  • research/constructor-emergence-simulator/CDRS_README.md
  • research/constructor-emergence-simulator/experiments/README.md

Trace Data

All traces are precomputed from the CDRS simulator and stored as static JSON files in /public/traces/.

Each trace contains:

  • Metadata: Phase, mechanisms, continuum class
  • Frames: Time-indexed snapshots of region states and composite membership
  • No interpolation: Only actual simulator outputs

To regenerate traces:

Terminal window
cd research/constructor-emergence-simulator
python generate_demo_traces.py

Future Work

This demo is stable across future phases because it only replays historical validated regimes.

Future extensions might include:

  • Phase 15+ traces (if new regimes are validated)
  • 2D spatial layouts (current demos use 1D for clarity)
  • Glider visualization (information carriers)

But the core principle remains: visualization follows validation, not speculation.

References

  • Paper F: Cohesion Dynamics — Foundational Concepts
  • Paper A: Substrate Mechanics
  • Paper B: Continuum Physics in Cohesive Phases
  • Paper C: Constructors (Draft)
  • CDRS Specification v1.0
  • Phase 11 Results: Precedence Selection
  • Phase 12 Results: Constructor Properties
  • Phase 14 Results: Hierarchical Emergence

Conclusion

These visualizations demonstrate that:

  1. Continuum admission filters substrate proposals
  2. Precedence selection enables stable binding
  3. Constructor properties emerge without design
  4. Hierarchy requires multi-scale precedence

This is Phase D: complete.

The purpose was communication, not discovery — and that purpose is now fulfilled.