Cohesive Informational Units (CIUs)

Look around. We never encounter information in an inconsistent state.

An atom is hydrogen, or it is helium — never partly both.
A detector fires, or it does not — never ambiguously.
An observer records one outcome or another — never a contradiction.

This is not a limitation of measurement. It is a structural feature of reality.

Physical systems never appear in partially contradictory states. This guide explains why — and introduces the concept of Cohesive Informational Units (CIUs), the atomic admission units at which reality maintains consistency.

1. Start From Observation: We Never See Inconsistency

The most basic empirical fact about reality is that we never observe systems in states that contradict themselves.

Examples:

An atom is hydrogen (1 proton) or helium (2 protons) — never “1.5 protons”
A spin measurement yields up or down — never “partly up and partly down”
A particle detector fires or does not fire — never “ambiguously triggered”
Two observers may use different reference frames, but their observations remain mutually consistent

This is not about quantum superposition (which exists before measurement). It is about what we actually observe: facts are always definite, never partial or contradictory.

Why This Matters

This observation is so basic that it often goes unnoticed. But it raises a profound question:

Why is reality structured such that partial or contradictory states never appear?

Most physical theories take this for granted. Cohesion Dynamics explains it structurally.

2. Consistency Requires Atomic Admission

Before we talk about specific structures or units, we need to establish a fundamental principle:

Consistency requires atomic admission.

What does this mean?

If a change is admissible into the consistency structure, it must be admitted as a whole.
If it is not admissible, none of it is admitted.
Partial admission = inconsistency = corruption.

This is not a metaphor — it is a logical requirement for a shared consistency structure.

Terminology note: The atomic act by which an admissible configuration is committed (thereby instantiating a CIU instance) is called a resolution. Resolution produces a commit. A commit is atomic: the configuration is either admitted as a whole, or not at all.

The Transaction Analogy

Consider a database transaction:

Either the entire transaction is committed (all changes applied)
Or nothing happens (no changes applied)
Partial application is corruption, not transition

A transaction is atomic not because it executes quickly, but because it cannot be partially applied.

The same logic applies to physical reality in Cohesion Dynamics:

Atomic admission means: A change either commits fully or not at all. Partial states are not slow transitions — they are inadmissible.

Why Partial Admission Would Be Catastrophic

If physical systems could be partially admitted, the coherence of reality would collapse.

Consider what would happen if partial states were admissible:

Region A admits a fact: “The electron has spin up”
Region B admits a conflicting fact: “The same electron has spin down”
Both regions remain internally consistent
But they cannot be jointly admitted into a shared consistency structure

The result: Different parts of the universe would contain incompatible “truths” with no way to resolve the contradiction.

Cohesion Dynamics explains: Partial states are not merely unobserved — they are inadmissible. The structure of reality prevents them from ever being admitted.

3. Atomicity Is Not About Speed

When we say a physical change is “atomic,” our usual intuition is: it happens very quickly.

But speed is not the key concept here.

Conventional intuition:

“Atomic = instantaneous” (happens too fast to observe intermediate states)

CD reframing:

“Atomic = non-partial admission” (intermediate states are structurally inadmissible, regardless of time)

This distinction is critical. Atomicity in CD is a structural constraint on admission, not a dynamical property about speed.

From the outside, every admissible change appears atomic — not because it happens quickly, but because no partial configuration can ever be admitted into the consistency structure.

4. Why Complexity Doesn’t Change Atomicity

Some physical transformations involve few degrees of freedom. Others involve many. Yet both appear equally atomic to the rest of the world.

Examples

Hydrogen atom (simple configuration):

Few internal degrees of freedom (proton–electron constraint)
Admits atomically

H₂O molecule (more complex configuration):

More internal degrees of freedom (multiple bonds, angular constraints)
Also admits atomically

Key observation: The external atomicity is the same, despite vastly different internal complexity.

Both Are CIUs — Just Different Constraint Graphs

This is the crucial insight:

Hydrogen and H₂O are both CIUs.
They differ not in “atomicity” or “indivisibility,” but in which constraints must be satisfied jointly for admission.

A hydrogen atom has:

A small internal constraint graph (proton–electron)
Fewer degrees of freedom that must remain jointly consistent when interacting

An H₂O molecule has:

A larger internal constraint graph (O–H bonds, bond angles, electronic structure)
More degrees of freedom that must remain jointly consistent to preserve “being H₂O”

Both are CIUs because when either interacts with the rest of the structure, the interaction must respect all of the constraints that define that configuration, or the configuration ceases to be admitted as that configuration.

The H₂O molecule can later be transformed (via another atomic admission) into hydrogen + oxygen — but that is a different admission, not a partial one.

So CIU ≠ indivisible
CIU = admission-unit under constraints

Why Complexity Doesn’t Change External Atomicity

This is not because complex transformations are faster. It is because:

The surrounding consistency structure cannot admit any intermediate configuration.

Whether the transformation internally involves 10 degrees of freedom or 10,000, the surrounding world only admits the fully consistent result.

From the outside, every admissible change appears as a complete transition — not because it happens quickly, but because no partial configuration can ever be admitted into the consistency structure.

5. Define CIUs: Units of Atomic Admission

We are now ready to name the structural units at which consistency operates through atomic admission.

Definition

A Cohesive Informational Unit (CIU) is a configuration whose interaction with the surrounding consistency structure is atomic: it is either admitted as a whole under the active constraints, or not admitted at all.

In other words:

A CIU’s internal degrees of freedom are admission-coupled
They cannot be admitted independently
Either the entire unit is admitted into the consistency structure, or none of it is

Key property: CIUs are defined by joint admissibility under constraints, not by physical indivisibility, scale, or permanence.

What Makes Something a CIU

A CIU is effectively:

A bundle of constraints + degrees of freedom that defines how it can interact without inconsistency.

This is the “rule book of interaction under constraints.”

Hydrogen and H₂O differ not in atomicity, but in:

Which constraint relations must be preserved jointly
And therefore which interactions are admissible

That’s exactly why CIUs scale naturally from elementary particles to molecules to potentially larger structures, without changing the ontology.

Key Clarifications

CIUs are NOT:

❌ Defined by size, mass, energy, or spatial extent
❌ Defined by timescales or speed
❌ Fixed or static structures
❌ “Fundamental” in a particle sense
❌ Ontological atoms or building blocks

CIUs ARE:

✅ Defined by atomic admission (all-or-nothing)
✅ Units of joint admissibility under constraints
✅ The units at which consistency operates
✅ Scale-emergent (larger CIUs can emerge from coupled smaller ones)
✅ Transactional units defined by constraint bundles
✅ Persistent structurally (via admissibility), not as enduring substances

Examples of CIUs

Clear CIUs

Elementary particles (electrons, quarks):

Internal degrees of freedom (spin, charge, etc.) always admit jointly
Never observe “partial electron” states
Atomic admission is unambiguous

Atoms (context-dependent):

Protons, neutrons, electrons coupled into a joint admission unit
Constituent degrees of freedom are admission-coupled
Never observe “1.5 protons” or “electron halfway between orbitals”
Admit as a unit relative to surrounding consistency structure

Molecules (context-dependent):

Chemical bonds couple atomic degrees of freedom
Molecule admits as a unit, not as independent atoms
Constituent degrees of freedom must be admitted jointly

Photons as Propagating CIUs

Photons are CIUs — but CIUs whose admissibility constraints privilege propagation over aggregation:

All CIUs (including photons) are admitted via resolution (atomic commit)
All CIUs participate in admissibility checks
Photons are propagation-role CIUs with minimal internal structure and tightly constrained admissible continuations

How photons differ from aggregate-role CIUs:

Aggregate-role CIUs (atoms, molecules) have rich internal coupling and resolve mostly internally
Propagation-role CIUs (photons) have minimal internal structure and resolve via relational continuation (propagation)
Both undergo admissible resolution sequences — propagation is not “free traversal”

Photon emission and absorption:

Emission: When a CIU cannot internalize mismatch, resolution instantiates a propagating CIU carrying that mismatch
Absorption: When a propagating CIU becomes jointly admissible with another CIU, they resolve together
Propagation: A sequence of admissible resolutions of the propagating CIU, not movement without resolution

See Mismatch and Constraint Pressure for how CIUs instantiate propagating CIUs when constraint tension cannot be internalized.

Key Insight: CIUs in Different Roles

Terminology note: The glossary definition of CIU already includes both aggregate-role and propagation-role instances. This guide unpacks the distinction for intuition only.

All informational entities admitted into the consistency structure are CIUs. What differs is their constraint profile and admissibility structure.

CIUs may participate in the consistency structure in different roles, depending on their constraint profile. These roles are not ontological categories, but they reflect materially different admissibility behaviour:

Aggregate-role CIUs (node-like):

Dominated by internal constraint coupling
Can internalise mismatch
Support reconfiguration, storage, and long-lived structure
Examples: atoms, molecules, bound systems

Propagation-role CIUs (edge-like):

Dominated by relational continuation constraints
Primarily carry mismatch rather than absorb it
Exist to be resolved elsewhere
Cannot internalise mismatch — their constraint profile enforces continued propagation as the only admissible resolution
This is why they exhibit:
- Fixed propagation speed
- Momentum-like invariants
- Value-type behaviour (exist to be consumed/resolved)
Examples: photons, radiative excitations, propagating constraint payloads

Key distinction: A propagating CIU persists only by continued admissible resolution. Unlike aggregate-role CIUs, it cannot “pause” by internal reconfiguration; its constraint profile enforces continuation until resolution.

This unifies the ontology:

No ontologically separate “edge” category — what are often called “edges” are CIUs in a propagation role
No entities exempt from resolution — all CIUs resolve (commit atomically)
Propagation = admissible resolution sequences — not free movement through space

6. Commits and CIUs: Type, Instance, and Admission

Before moving forward, it’s important to clarify the relationship between commits, CIUs, and configurations.

Commits vs CIUs: A Conceptual Distinction

A commit is a single, immutable admission event.

A CIU is the admission-coupled structural unit that a commit instantiates.

Think of it this way:

CIU types (e.g., “hydrogen atom”, “H₂O molecule”) — the structural patterns defined by constraint bundles
CIU instances (a particular hydrogen configuration at a particular commit) — specific admissions instantiating those patterns

We can therefore speak of CIU types (e.g., “hydrogen-like constraint bundle”) and CIU instances (a specific admitted configuration at a specific commit).

In other words:

Every commit instantiates some CIU
CIUs are not events, but the structural units at which commits occur
Transformations between CIUs occur via commits, not by partial mutation

Why This Matters: CIUs Persist Structurally

This framing clarifies something important: CIUs do persist — but persistence in CD has a precise structural meaning.

Structural persistence in Cohesion Dynamics:

Persistence comes from admissibility, not from objecthood
CIUs persist structurally via their admitted configurations
Once admitted, a configuration exists immutably in the consistency structure
What changes is which CIU instance is the current admissible continuation

Key insight: Identity and persistence are consequences of structural admissibility, not properties of “things” that endure independently.

This allows CIUs to be both:

Stable and persistent (we can talk about “the same hydrogen atom”)
Structurally defined (identity emerges from constraint satisfaction, not from substance)

6.5 Functional Classes of CIUs: Mismatch-Handling Regimes

Having established that CIUs are the only ontological entities, we can now address a crucial question: Why does physics distinguish particle types?

The answer lies not in what CIUs are, but in how they handle mismatch under constraint — whether they can internalise it or must propagate it.

This functional distinction maps cleanly onto the physics distinction between matter and radiation, fermions and bosons, without re-importing classical particle ontology.

Two Fundamental Mismatch-Handling Regimes

CIUs naturally divide into two functional classes based on their mismatch-handling capabilities:

Structure-Bearing CIUs (Matter-like)

Properties:

Can absorb mismatch into internal degrees of freedom
Can store mismatch as:
- Mass
- Internal excitation
- Deformation
Can remain stable while doing so
Have rich internal constraint structure allowing mismatch reconfiguration

Physical examples:

Electrons, quarks, protons (fermions)
Atoms, molecules
Nuclei
Macroscopic bodies

CD interpretation: These CIUs have constraint structures that enforce exclusivity (Pauli exclusion in fermions) and identity preservation, making them ideal for internalising mismatch and forming stable aggregates.

This is why matter is made of fermions.

Propagation-Dominant CIUs (Radiation-like)

Properties:

Cannot stably internalise mismatch
Have very limited internal degrees of freedom
Must externalise mismatch immediately
Exist primarily as propagation
Can accumulate without exclusion (bosons can “pile up”)

Physical examples:

Photons
Gluons (if they exist as independent excitations)
Phonons
Other gauge excitations

CD interpretation: These CIUs are structurally forced to propagate mismatch because internal reconciliation is not admissible. Their admissibility structure allows unrestricted co-occupation and prioritises propagation over internal reconciliation.

This is why:

Photons don’t exclude each other
Fields exist
Waves superpose
Energy travels without “objects” moving

Can Structure-Bearing CIUs Propagate Mismatch?

Yes — absolutely.

The distinction is not “things that propagate vs things that don’t.”

Any CIU can participate in mismatch redistribution.

But how they propagate mismatch differs fundamentally:

Structure-bearing CIUs can internalise mismatch, store it, and later externalise it
Propagation-dominant CIUs cannot pause — they must propagate continuously

Example: What happens when two atoms collide?

When two structure-bearing CIUs collide:

Mismatch may exceed their internal capacity
Some mismatch is internalised (heating, deformation)
Excess mismatch is externalised by instantiating propagation-dominant CIUs (photons, phonons, particles)

So: structure-bearing CIUs can propagate mismatch, but they do so by creating propagation-specialised CIUs.

This preserves the distinction cleanly without blurring roles.

Why Masslessness Is Secondary, Not Primary

Mass follows from mismatch-handling capacity — it is not the cause of the distinction.

In CD terms:

Mass = capacity to internalise mismatch stably
Propagation-dominant CIUs lack that capacity
Therefore they cannot be massive

So:

Photons are massless because they cannot internalise mismatch
Not the other way around

This also explains why:

Massive bosons exist (W, Z bosons)
But they are unstable and short-lived
Because they partially internalise mismatch, but poorly

Mapping to Physics: Fermions vs Bosons

Physics distinguishes particles not by “mass vs no mass” but by their fundamental constraint structure:

Fermions (structure-bearing):

Carry identity-defining constraints
Enforce exclusivity (Pauli exclusion)
Resist co-occupation
Stabilise structure

Bosons (propagation-dominant):

Can pile up in the same state
Mediate interactions
Carry influence without identity
Often massless (but not required)

One-sentence takeaway:

Physics distinguishes particle types not by what they are, but by how they handle mismatch under constraint — whether they can internalise it or must propagate it.

This Preserves Edge/Node Intuition Without Dual Ontology

You don’t lose the useful distinction between “nodes” and “edges”:

Edges are CIUs whose only admissible role is propagation
Nodes are CIUs with internal reconciliation capacity

The edge/node distinction is functional, not ontological.

Both are CIUs. Neither is “more real.” Neither is an exception.

You gain explanatory depth while maintaining substrate independence.

7. Why CIUs Explain Atomic Physical Change

We can now close the loop back to the original observation.

Why do we never see partial or inconsistent states?

Because:

Physical reality is structured into CIUs
CIUs can only be admitted into consistency structures atomically (all-or-nothing)
The world only ever admits fully consistent configurations
Partial configurations never appear in any reference frame

From the Outside: All Changes Appear Atomic

From any external reference frame:

A CIU is in one admissible state
Then it is in another admissible state
No intermediate state is ever observed

Not because the change happens quickly — but because no partial configuration can ever be admitted.

From the Inside: Structural Coupling

Internally, a CIU may involve:

Many degrees of freedom
Complex constraint satisfaction
Distributed internal structure

But these internal details are invisible to the outside world because the CIU admits as a unit.

CIUs are the units at which reality maintains consistency through atomic admission.

8. Relation to Other CD Concepts (Light, Forward-Only)

CIUs appear throughout the Cohesion Dynamics framework in different contexts:

CIUs are the units that:

Branch (B-series) — when multiple exclusive admissible continuations exist, CIUs branch as units
Carry internal modes (M-series) — internal degrees of freedom within a CIU give rise to quantum numbers
Commit into consistency structures (A-OPS) — closure operates at the CIU level, determining which consistency structure a commit anchors to

None of this machinery is needed to understand what a CIU is.

Forward references (for readers continuing to formal papers):

Paper A (Substrate Mechanics) — Formal definition of CIUs and admissibility coupling
Paper B-series (Structural Superposition) — How CIUs branch and why branching occurs
Paper M-series (Formal Mechanisms) — Internal structure and mode emergence within CIUs
Paper A-OPS (Operational Semantics) — How CIUs commit and close into consistency structures

9. Technical Note: Equivalence Classes and Formal Structure

For readers with formal mathematical background:

A CIU can be formally characterized as an equivalence class under “must-be-admitted-together”.

However, this is not the intuitive way to understand CIUs. What matters conceptually is:

“This configuration only ever appears as a whole when interacting with the rest of reality.”

That’s the intuition that grounds the concept.

The formal equivalence-class structure is a precise mathematical characterization, but should not be the entry point for understanding. The entry point is atomic admission under constraints.

10. What This Page Does Not Claim

This page is a conceptual orientation guide. It introduces no new axioms and makes no formal claims.

Explicitly excluded (these appear in formal papers, not here):

❌ Tolerance windows (W)
❌ Coherence times or time windows
❌ Dynamical cycles or update rates
❌ Optimization or energy minimization
❌ Probability measures or Born rule
❌ Observer self-location or subjective experience
❌ Derivations or necessity claims

Purpose of this page:

Build intuition for CIUs as atomic admission units
Explain atomicity as structural non-partiality, not speed
Ground the concept in observable facts (no partial inconsistency)
Clarify that CIUs are transactional units defined by constraint bundles
Prepare readers for formal treatments in A-, M-, and B-series papers

For rigorous definitions and derivations, always refer to the formal papers.

11. Summary: CIUs as Atomic Admission Units

Let’s consolidate the core insights:

Reality never appears partially inconsistent — this is an observable structural fact
Consistency requires atomic admission — changes must be admitted as a whole or not at all
Atomicity ≠ speed — atomicity means non-partial admission, not rapid execution
Complexity doesn’t affect external atomicity — H and H₂O are both CIUs with different constraint graphs
CIUs are admission-coupled configurations — they admit jointly or not at all
CIUs are defined by constraint bundles — the “rule book of interaction under constraints”
Commits instantiate CIUs — commits are events; CIUs are the structural units at which commits occur
CIUs persist structurally — via admissibility, with identity emerging from constraint satisfaction
CIUs explain why change appears atomic — partial configurations are inadmissible, not merely unobserved

This structural framing replaces the intuition that “atoms are very small, indivisible things” with “CIUs are the units at which consistency operates through atomic admission.”

Prerequisites and Further Reading

Prerequisites

Before reading this page, familiarity with the following is helpful:

Information and Constraint — Foundational concepts of constraints and admissibility
Continuity and Identity Without Objects — How identity and continuity work structurally

Recommended Next Steps

After reading this page, proceed to:

Probability in Cohesion Dynamics — How CIUs relate to branching and probability
Research Programme — Understanding the role of formal papers
Paper A: Substrate Mechanics — Formal definition of CIUs (for readers seeking rigor)

For Formal Definitions

Paper A (Substrate Mechanics) — Mathematical specification of CIUs and admissibility coupling
Paper A-OPS (Operational Semantics) — How commits and closure operate at the CIU level
Paper M-series (Formal Mechanisms) — Internal modes and quantization within CIUs
Paper B-series (Structural Superposition) — How CIUs branch and admit
Glossary — CIU — Canonical definition and cross-references

Note on Document Status

This is a conceptual orientation guide, not a research paper. It introduces no new axioms, makes no necessity claims, and derives no formal results. Its purpose is to build intuition for how CIUs work in Cohesion Dynamics by grounding them in observable consistency and the principle of atomic admission.

For rigorous treatments, refer to the formal A-series, M-series, and B-series papers.