How to Read Cohesion Dynamics

This page explains how to interpret claims made in Cohesion Dynamics papers, particularly around necessity, kernel structure, and what the theory does and does not claim.

The Core Message

Cohesion Dynamics does not claim that its kernel structure forces specific outcomes to happen.

Instead, CD claims:

Without certain structural capabilities, specific behaviours have not yet been recoverable in the models and simulations we’ve explored.

This is a big difference. CD is not saying “these things must happen.” It’s saying “we haven’t found a way to get these behaviours without these capabilities yet.”

Understanding “Necessary” in CD

When CD papers say something is “necessary,” they mean:

“Conditionally necessary in explored regimes” — required in the models we’ve tested so far
NOT “logically necessary” — not inevitable or forced by logic alone
NOT “guaranteed” — not certain to occur
NOT “sufficient” — having the capability doesn’t guarantee the outcome

Examples of Correct Interpretation

What the paper says	What it means	What it does NOT mean
”X is necessary for Y”	In models explored so far, Y hasn’t appeared without X	Y must always occur if X is present
”X is required”	We haven’t found an alternative to X yet	X is the only possible way
”X permits Y”	X makes Y possible, based on simulations	X guarantees Y will happen
”In explored regimes…”	Within the scope of models tested to date	True everywhere and always

Kernel Structure: Hardware, Not Software

CD distinguishes between:

Hardware-Like: Kernel Structure

What it is: The structural capabilities that any CD-compatible system must support.

Think of this like a computer’s instruction set — it defines what’s possible, not what actually happens.

Example capabilities:

Configurations can branch into alternatives
Resolutions compose in specific ways
Consistency can be checked
Dependencies form ordered structures

Software-Like: Rules, Constants, Initial Conditions

What it is: The specific dynamics, parameter values, and starting configurations.

This is what actually determines outcomes. The “hardware” (kernel) makes it possible; the “software” (rules + constants + initial conditions) determines what actually happens.

The critical point: Kernel structure alone does NOT predict outcomes. Outcomes depend on both structure (kernel) and specifics (rules, constants, initial conditions).

Carrier Independence vs. Substrate Independence

CD makes a careful distinction between two related but different concepts:

Carrier Independence ✓ (CD affirms this)

Claim: The kernel structure doesn’t depend on any specific mathematical formalism.

What this means:

You can implement CD using graphs, categories, Petri nets, constraint systems, etc.
No single formalism is “the right one”
Multiple representations can coexist
The kernel is about capabilities, not specific implementations

Analogy: Like how you can implement the same algorithm in Python, Java, or C++ — the algorithm is independent of the language.

Substrate Independence (Carefully scoped)

Claim: CD doesn’t assume a specific physical substrate in advance.

What this does NOT mean:

Any substrate can realize CD structure
Physical substrate doesn’t matter
The kernel works regardless of physical constraints

What it DOES mean:

The substrate isn’t pre-specified in the theory
Physical substrates must meet kernel requirements to be CD-compatible
Not all substrates may support the necessary capabilities

CD therefore makes no claim that arbitrary mathematical or physical substrates are capable of realising the kernel; compatibility is an empirical and structural question, not an assumption.

Carrier independence and substrate independence are not the same thing.

Kernel Capabilities: Regime Classifications, Not Stages

When CD talks about “kernel capabilities,” these are:

Regime classifications — ways of organizing which operational regimes the kernel grammar permits
NOT ontological stages — not inevitable steps in universe evolution
NOT physical epochs — not time periods or historical phases
NOT guarantees — capabilities don’t inevitably produce specific phenomena

What Kernel Capabilities Mean

Each capability profile describes structural requirements that, in explored models, appear to be needed together for certain phenomena.

Example: “Constructor-permissive capability” (K-CAP-CONST)

Means: Capabilities that simulations show are needed for constructor-like behaviour
Does NOT mean: Constructors must emerge
Does NOT mean: This is a guaranteed stage of evolution

Capabilities classify what the kernel grammar permits, not what must happen.

Note: Legacy “Layer-N” or “Kernel-N” terminology in older papers refers to these capability profiles.

How Simulations and Mechanisms Work

M-Series (Formal Mechanisms)

M-series papers define how mechanisms work formally.

What they do: Explain the structure and logic of mechanisms (cohesion, modes, tolerance, etc.)

What they don’t do:

Prove mechanisms are sufficient
Show mechanisms must produce specific outcomes
Claim inevitability

E-Series (Empirical Narrowing)

E-series papers use simulations to eliminate alternatives.

What they do: Show that certain alternatives don’t work in simulations

What they don’t do:

Prove logical necessity
Confirm theory correctness (they’re eliminative, not confirmatory)
Guarantee results apply beyond tested regimes

Combined M/E Evidence

When M-series formal structure and E-series simulation evidence align, this supports conditional necessity claims — the strongest form of evidence CD produces.

But even this remains:

Conditional (on explored regimes)
Open to revision (new evidence can update understanding)
Not logically necessary (not guaranteed by logic alone)

What CD Claims and Doesn’t Claim

CD DOES Claim

✓ Certain capabilities have been required in explored models
✓ Specific behaviours haven’t been recovered without certain structures
✓ The kernel structure is independent of specific mathematical formalisms
✓ M-series and E-series evidence support conditional necessity

CD Does NOT Claim

✗ Logical necessity or inevitability
✗ Guarantees that phenomena will emerge
✗ Kernel capabilities are sufficient (they’re necessary but not sufficient)
✗ Any substrate can realize CD structure
✗ Outcomes are predetermined by kernel structure
✗ Teleological forcing (purpose or goal-direction)

Reading Different Paper Series

Different CD paper series have different roles and should be evaluated differently:

F-Series (Foundational Postulates)

Role: State ontological commitments and starting assumptions

How to read: Evaluate philosophical coherence, not empirical predictions

K-Series (Kernel Grammar & Invariants)

Role: Define structural capabilities that substrates must support

How to read: Check formal coherence and minimality, not sufficiency

Remember: K-series papers (especially K-GOV) govern how to interpret claims across the programme

A-Series (Carrier Architectures)

Role: Show how kernel capabilities can be realized

How to read: As existence proofs, not as “the only way”

M-Series (Formal Mechanisms)

Role: Formalize how mechanisms work

How to read: Check formal rigor, not inevitability or sufficiency

E-Series (Empirical Narrowing)

Role: Eliminate alternatives through simulation

How to read: As eliminative evidence, not confirmatory proof

B-Series & G-Series (Derivations)

Role: Derive physics from substrate mechanics

How to read: Check derivation logic, but remember results are conditional on kernel + carrier + rules

Common Misunderstandings to Avoid

❌ “CD claims quantum mechanics must emerge”

Correct: CD derives quantum-like structure from substrate mechanics in explored models. This is conditional on kernel structure, carrier implementation, and rules.

❌ “Kernel capabilities are inevitable stages of universe evolution”

Correct: Kernel capabilities are regime classifications, not predetermined stages.

❌ “CD works with any physical substrate”

Correct: CD doesn’t assume a specific substrate, but not all substrates may support kernel requirements.

❌ “If the kernel supports X, X will definitely happen”

Correct: Kernel provides capabilities (hardware); outcomes depend on rules, constants, and initial conditions (software).

❌ “Simulations prove the theory is correct”

Correct: Simulations eliminate alternatives (show what doesn’t work) but don’t confirm the theory.

Why This Matters

This careful interpretation matters because:

Falsifiability: CD remains falsifiable. Counterexamples refine the theory, they don’t destroy it.
Intellectual honesty: CD doesn’t over-claim or promise what it can’t deliver.
Scientific rigor: Distinguishing conditional from logical necessity is crucial for good science. Over-claiming necessity would collapse CD into a teleological or unfalsifiable framework, undermining its scientific value.
Future-proofing: As new evidence emerges, claims can be updated without invalidating the framework.

How to Cite CD Correctly

When citing CD work, use the appropriate series for different types of claims:

For More Detail

For the complete, normative governance framework, see:

Paper K-GOV — Governance of Epistemic Scope and Necessity Claims

K-GOV is the authoritative reference that all CD papers must follow when making necessity claims, describing kernel capabilities, or interpreting M-series and E-series results.

Summary

Key takeaways:

“Necessary” in CD means “conditionally necessary in explored regimes,” not logically inevitable
Kernel structure provides capabilities (hardware-like) but doesn’t determine outcomes
Outcomes depend on kernel + carrier + rules + constants + initial conditions
Carrier independence ≠ substrate independence
Layers are epistemic groupings, not ontological stages
Simulations eliminate alternatives; they don’t prove correctness
CD makes conditional claims open to revision, not absolute guarantees

Read CD papers with these principles in mind, and consult K-GOV when interpreting scope-sensitive or necessity claims.