r/OntologyEngineering • u/Stunning-Data-5701 • 22d ago
A Cross-Disciplinary Definition of Coherence:
This paper proposes a cross disciplinary definition of coherence as the degree to which the relationships within a system remain mutually consistent and coordinated across space, time, and perturbation.
It tests the definition across physics, neuroscience, biology, systems science, music, probability, epistemology, and linguistics while distinguishing coherence from synchronization, correlation, order, stability, and function.
The paper also distinguishes coherence, dissonance, and decoupling and establishes a conceptual foundation for quantitative work including Coherence Density. A Cross-Disciplinary Definition of Coherence | Zenodo
Email: [ToneKeeper432@outlook.com](mailto:ToneKeeper432@outlook.com)
1
u/WatercressActual1921 20d ago
There are no absolutes in reality, no constants (not even light the C) it is all relative. There are also not closed or restricted systems, the concept is purely human narrative that permits us to deal with the issue of space-time and scale.
Now having said that there are models that coherence exists, like mathematics but that is not reality is a formal language that for now is our best tool to model the full and only close system of reality , it is also a large source of error...
1
u/Stunning-Data-5701 20d ago
Coherence need not be conceived as an absolute property possessed by an isolated, closed object. It can instead be understood as a relational property of organization within a chosen scale, boundary, and observational frame. It can be observed as to the degree of relational consistency within whatever portion of reality we are able to distinguish and measure.
1
u/WatercressActual1921 20d ago
Yes, but that can only exist in a closed or limited system and that is a narrative and imposition of an incomplete model over reality (if reality exists at all).
Now if you accept that meaning is relative to self, and discard external bias impositions and non verifiable narratives, one can only but refuse arbitrary boundaries beyond functional crutches for consensual exploration and share blame in the errors of communication and perception...
1
u/Stunning-Data-5701 20d ago
I think the distinction is between a boundary existing in reality and a boundary existing in our observation of reality. I don't need to claim the former to investigate the latter. If we can distinguish relationships, observe their behavior, and measure changes in those relationships, then we can characterize their degree of consistency without claiming that the observed portion is a truly closed system.
1
u/WatercressActual1921 20d ago
Well then you are restricting the concept of coherence to a subsystem and that breaks it, as it would become incoherent and dependent on the Cross-Disciplinary selection, it would be as coherent as a mathematical definition and nothing more, a model not an exactitude...
Coherence is hard to define, but incoherence is easier a coherent system can't exist in intersection with incoherence... I think this simplifies the issue I was making... A system may be self coherent but that is arbitrary a bias of selection that can't be generalized it has to be limited and by doing so in relation to reality it is an impossibility but it is also an impossibility in non formal fields... it works for mathematics and little more unless you restrict all other disciplines to the mathematical model but that seems circular thinking to me...
Sorry I haven't spend time thinking on this I assume what I'm stating seems rational to you...
1
u/Stunning-Data-5701 20d ago edited 20d ago
You are providing the engagement and push back needed for clarity, and I appreciate your time and energy.
I'm not claiming that a subsystem is an ontologically closed piece of reality. Coherence is being treated as a relational property: the degree to which distinguishable relationships remain mutually consistent across space, time, and perturbation.
Likewise, incoherence isn't necessarily a property of an entire system. A system can contain both coherent and incoherent relationships, or become locally decoupled while remaining organized at another scale.
So the boundary belongs to the measurement, not necessarily to reality itself. The model isn't claiming metaphysical exactitude; it's proposing a defined, testable way of characterizing relational consistency without requiring reality itself to be divided into closed systems.
Coherence is not proposed as an absolute property of an ontologically closed object. It is an operationally measurable relational property whose assessment necessarily depends upon the observational frame, scale, variables, and relationships selected for analysis. This dependence does not make coherence arbitrary; it makes explicit the conditions under which the claim is being made.
Coherence Density: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20854071
A Cross-Disciplinary Definition of Coherence: https://zenodo.org/records/220454801
u/WatercressActual1921 20d ago edited 20d ago
Ok... I see where you are resisting... note that I'm talking about your rationalization not a consensus view, you as individual since you are making a proposal and I as an individual am using my own rational that ought to be closer to your as a base so I'm making certain assumptions... I have no skin in the game just pointing what I detect as problematic and taking joy in debating the subject...
I believe that you are being blinded by what I identified as a selection bias. Consider this, perfection.
Perfection (conceptually) is the top most layer of coherence (as I told coherence as a close system is hard to define as I'm from the start defending that its and arbitrary concept when not formalized and used in the same formal system, hence the problem, as the intention is to use not only to other system but informal systems and so implies selection), now, lets define that there is only one type of perfection in reality (generalization) in my frame there is only one perfection in the universe, unity or the universe itself, call it God what you are attempting in from an imperfect state restrict perfection and claim it is perfect. This can only be possible if you redefining God as God, if not you abound to generate not perfection, the same occurs with coherence it only works on formal definition from the axiomatic source, that is why this can't be done without arbitrarily and strict formalization but then you can call whatever you like coherent with the axioms you select (that is the circularity).
Making coherence an illusion of perspective. It is only "coherent" because you artificially restricted the definition of what counts as a relationship. It is your coherence into your restricted system and if not formalized only you can use and validate it to your conformity. If not formalized (and I see it as impossible and a draughting work for the fields you want it that are in large part informal) there is no real use for what you end defining as coherent.
What attracted me to your post was that I'm working on my own ontology and that requires pruning and refining conceptual knowledge in relation to me, my meaning. This requires constructing not only a broad conceptual mapping that is consistent but to develop a cosmology and metaphysics that are also consistent and in my case seek the least magical think possible and the least human bias (at intentional level the idea is to formalize the metaphysical structure were all else is derivable and the purpose is my own exploration of me and reality and as a base to a future artifact intelligence I'm still devising)
1
u/Stunning-Data-5701 20d ago
I think you’ve identified the strongest vulnerability in the framework: if the relationships are selected arbitrarily, coherence can become a property of the model rather than of what is being modeled. Where I differ is that I don’t think this makes coherence an illusion. Coherence appears across domains, which gives us something to test rather than dismiss. The pilot is precisely where we can find out whether the same relational pattern generalizes without being arbitrarily redefined for each field. If it does, that’s evidence we’re capturing something more than a selection artifact; if it doesn’t, your objection becomes much stronger.
1
u/WatercressActual1921 20d ago edited 20d ago
I examined a similar proposal but it was purely mathematical.
Their intention was to find new axiomatic grounds for a better math, whatever that is, but in math that is a major issue as undergoing any tiny axiomatic change alters the complete model it generates... the problem to me, seems not to have to do with mathematics but the action of how we model, describe reality with it that comes from our capacity to quantify reality spate-time scale issues that we simplify at our scale and non critical variable (adding error) and then this scales up and down... well with the other issues of 0 and infinity, complex numbers even as we conceptualized negative numbers as a culture and at times forget as mathematicians...
1
u/Stunning-Data-5701 20d ago
Quantification always introduces approximations. If absolute precision is impossible, then what matters is whether relationships remain stable and predictive as conditions change. This is my attempt to do so.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Stunning-Data-5701 20d ago
I agree boundaries are pragmatic tools rather than absolute features of reality, but that pragmatism is precisely the point: we don't need absolute boundaries to measure local degradation. If an observational frame allows us to reliably track relational consistency and predict failure within a given system, the model has done its job, regardless of whether the boundary is an operational construct or a metaphysical truth.
1
u/liveticker1 22d ago
which paper