Skip to content
Cohesion Dynamics (CD)

Interpretation

Purpose

The Cohesion Dynamics research programme derives quantum mechanics (B1–B5) from deterministic substrate mechanics without importing quantum axioms. This naturally raises interpretational questions:

  • Is this Many-Worlds?
  • Is collapse real?
  • Is the theory stochastic?
  • How does probability arise?

This page addresses these questions explicitly to reduce avoidable ambiguity while keeping interpretational discussion out of the formal papers.

Determinism

Core Position:

  • Substrate dynamics are fully deterministic
  • No fundamental randomness is introduced at any level
  • No objective collapse postulate exists in the formalism
  • All evolution follows deterministic commit semantics (Paper A)

What This Means: The substrate evolves according to fixed, deterministic rules. When the formalism says a system is in a superposition, this represents uncommitted substrate states that are simultaneously admissible under tolerance constraints. The evolution of these states is deterministic—there is no ontological randomness governing which outcomes occur.

What This Does NOT Mean: This does not mean observers can predict which branch they will experience. Branch-relative uncertainty is epistemic (self-locating), not ontic (fundamental randomness in nature).

Branching

Core Position:

  • Multiple compatible histories coexist in the pre-commit regime
  • Branching is structural/representational, not ontological “world creation”
  • Commit (Paper A) resolves incompatibilities deterministically
  • Branches are deterministic alternatives tracked by the amplitude formalism (B1)

What This Means: When substrate configurations diverge, multiple post-commit outcomes become structurally possible. These are not “parallel universes” being created—they are representations of the fact that the substrate can resolve into multiple mutually exclusive but individually admissible final states.

The amplitude formalism (B1) exists precisely because these divergent possibilities must be tracked before commit occurs. Commit is the deterministic resolution mechanism that selects one branch.

What This Does NOT Mean:

  • Branching does not create new ontology beyond the substrate
  • Branches are not causally isolated “worlds” that proliferate endlessly
  • The framework does not postulate metaphysical “splitting”

Probability

Core Position:

  • Outcome weighting is epistemic/self-locating, not ontic
  • No stochastic dynamics exist at the substrate level
  • The Born rule (B5) arises from conserved structural measures
  • Probabilities are branch-relative weights, not frequencies or propensities

What This Means: When an observer is embedded in a pre-commit superposition, they cannot determine which post-commit branch they will occupy. The Born rule wk∝∣αk∣2w_k \propto |\alpha_k|^2 (where αk\alpha_k are the complex amplitudes from B1) provides the only consistent weighting over branches that preserves compatibility conservation, unitary evolution, and compositional coherence (B5).

This weighting is not a statement about “how often” outcomes occur (frequentism) or about “tendencies” in nature (propensity). It is a structural measure forced by representational consistency: if you are an embedded observer, this is the only coherent way to weight your epistemic uncertainty over which branch you occupy.

What This Does NOT Mean:

  • Probability is not fundamental randomness in the laws of physics
  • The framework does not endorse ensemble interpretations
  • Born-rule weights are not mere “credences” detached from physical structure

Relationship to Existing Interpretations

This section provides a descriptive (not argumentative) positioning of Cohesion Dynamics relative to standard quantum mechanics interpretations.

Compatible: Everett / Deutsch (Many-Worlds)

High Alignment: Cohesion Dynamics is structurally similar to Everettian quantum mechanics and Deutsch’s formulation of Many-Worlds in the following ways:

  • No collapse: Both reject objective wavefunction collapse
  • Determinism: Both treat quantum mechanics as fundamentally deterministic
  • Branching structure: Both accept that multiple outcomes coexist in superposition
  • Epistemic probability: Both treat Born-rule probabilities as self-locating uncertainty, not fundamental randomness

Key Difference: Everett/Deutsch typically take quantum mechanics as fundamental. Cohesion Dynamics derives quantum mechanics from substrate mechanics (A-series, B-series). The branching structure and Born rule are emergent, not postulated.

Additionally, Cohesion Dynamics provides an explicit commit mechanism (Paper A) that resolves branches deterministically, whereas some Everettian approaches leave branch resolution implicit or rely on decoherence alone without specifying the underlying mechanism.

Rejected: Copenhagen

Incompatible: The Copenhagen interpretation is fundamentally incompatible with Cohesion Dynamics:

  • Collapse: Copenhagen posits objective, irreversible wavefunction collapse. Cohesion Dynamics rejects this—commit is deterministic resolution, not stochastic collapse.
  • Observer Role: Copenhagen treats measurement as ontologically special. Cohesion Dynamics treats “measurement” as commit—a process governed by the same substrate mechanics as all other evolution (Paper A).
  • Classical/Quantum Divide: Copenhagen maintains a fundamental divide between quantum and classical realms. Cohesion Dynamics derives both from the same substrate.

Rejected: Objective Collapse Theories (GRW, Penrose)

Incompatible: Objective collapse models introduce stochastic, physical collapse mechanisms. Cohesion Dynamics:

  • Contains no stochastic dynamics
  • Contains no collapse postulates
  • Derives measurement outcomes from deterministic commit semantics

Cohesion Dynamics is incompatible with any interpretation requiring fundamental randomness in the laws of physics.

Incompatible: Bohmian Mechanics

Ontological Mismatch: Bohmian mechanics introduces additional ontology (particle positions guided by pilot waves) beyond the wavefunction. Cohesion Dynamics:

  • Derives quantum structure from substrate mechanics alone
  • Introduces no hidden variables or guiding equations
  • Contains no supplementary ontology beyond the substrate

While both are deterministic, they differ fundamentally in what exists and how quantum mechanics is explained.

Incompatible: QBism (Quantum Bayesianism)

Epistemic Disagreement: QBism treats quantum states as subjective degrees of belief rather than representations of physical structure. Cohesion Dynamics:

  • Treats amplitudes as objective structural representations of substrate configurations
  • Derives Born-rule probabilities from physical constraints, not subjective credence updating
  • Rejects the reduction of quantum mechanics to personal belief systems

Cohesion Dynamics is incompatible with purely subjective interpretations of quantum states.

Summary

Cohesion Dynamics is best understood as structurally aligned with Everettian/Many-Worlds interpretations, with the critical distinction that:

  1. Quantum mechanics is derived, not assumed
  2. Branching and probability are emergent from substrate mechanics
  3. Commit provides an explicit resolution mechanism that is deterministic, not stochastic

The framework rejects collapse, objective randomness, and supplementary ontology. It treats quantum mechanics as an effective description of deterministic substrate dynamics, where probabilities arise as branch-relative epistemic weights forced by representational consistency.

This interpretational stance does not affect the formal derivations. Papers A, B1–B5, and the broader research programme stand independently of how one chooses to interpret the results. This page exists only to clarify the natural interpretation that emerges from the formalism itself.