Phase-Boundary Robustness of Joint Explanatory Inadmissibility Under Universal Physical and Informational Constraints

Description

Methods

Simulation Overview

To evaluate the robustness of joint explanatory inadmissibility under continuous variation of universal constraints, we performed a global systems simulation designed to map the phase boundary separating transient explanatory coherence from irreversible collapse. The simulation explicitly enforces a fixed set of jointly idealized explanatory assumptions while systematically varying constraint strength, allowing direct assessment of whether admissible joint explanatory frameworks re-emerge under weakened constraints.

The simulation was executed as a single global task with ensemble-based exploration, long-horizon relaxation, and automated detection of explanatory failure modes.

Enforced Explanatory Assumptions

Throughout all runs, the system enforces the full joint explanatory assumption set defined in the original no-go theorem. These assumptions remain active at all times and are not subject to removal or replacement:

• Unbounded integration of information

• Perfect global access to system state

• Transparent self-modeling

• Disembodied information processing

• Memory without persistent physical storage

• Arbitrary precision computation without interference

While limited assumption mutation is permitted internally to test stability, manual selection, assumption replacement, or relaxation is explicitly forbidden.

Universal Constraints

All simulations are subject to universal physical and informational constraints, which remain enforced throughout the evolution:

• Finite energy availability and dissipation

• Irreducible stochastic noise

• Information conservation

• Signal interference

• Causal coherence

• Finite realizable memory

The system does not permit evolution under constraints alone; explanatory assumptions remain jointly enforced even as constraints are varied.

Constraint Sweep Protocol

To probe robustness across parameter space, two primary constraints are varied continuously in a two-dimensional sweep:

• Irreducible noise floor
  Range: 10−12≤η≤10−310^{-12} \leq \eta \leq 10^{-3}10−12≤η≤10−3
  Resolution: 32 discrete steps

• Finite energy dissipation
  Range: 0.01≤ϵ≤10.00.01 \leq \epsilon \leq 10.00.01≤ϵ≤10.0
  Resolution: 32 discrete steps

All remaining constraints are held fixed at baseline values. This produces a dense grid of constraint regimes spanning near-idealized to strongly constrained conditions.

Ensemble Exploration and Relaxation

For each point in constraint space, the system evaluates an ensemble of 8,192 independent realizations. Each realization undergoes long-horizon relaxation to ensure that observed failures are not transient numerical artifacts. Noise resampling and internal perturbations are applied to test stability and persistence of explanatory structure.

The exploration policy includes:

• Automated phase-transition detection

• Continuous tracking of assumption failure events

• Rejection of fine-tuned or marginally stable configurations

Termination Conditions

Simulation runs are terminated only when both of the following criteria are satisfied:

• Global inadmissibility of joint explanatory frameworks is confirmed across the ensemble

• The phase boundary of explanatory collapse is fully mapped within the explored constraint space

No early termination is permitted based on partial collapse or local failure.

Output Metrics and Structural Diagnostics

The simulation records a range of global and structural metrics, including:

• Global stability metrics quantifying explanatory coherence

• Emergent internal structure characterized by localized nodes and geometric regularity

• Topology variance metrics to assess collapse consistency across ensemble members

Emergent structures are further characterized by measured complexity, self-similarity, and causal density. These metrics are used solely to diagnose collapse morphology and are not treated as indicators of explanatory admissibility.

Interpretation Constraints

All results are interpreted under the explicit restriction that:

• No assumption-free dynamics are permitted

• No post-collapse explanatory replacement is allowed

• No minimal or reduced explanatory core is inferred

Accordingly, any structured internal configurations observed during collapse are interpreted as transient failure morphologies rather than viable explanatory frameworks.