18 December 2025

My response to Mr. Arturo Cerezo Garcia. - A deeper stability or fixed-point condition in question within ECM

December 18, 2025

Dear Mr. Arturo Cerezo Garcia ,

Thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging response. Your framing captures the intent of this construction very accurately.

In ECM, the Planck interval is treated not as a geometric or relativistic boundary, but as a terminal coherence threshold—the smallest physically accountable phase-ordering interval beyond which conventional physical descriptors cease to apply. Below this threshold, only energy conservation remains meaningful, expressed through frequency and phase. In that sense, your characterization of the Planck scale as a potential attractor rather than a boundary is very much aligned with the ECM viewpoint.

At present, the phase–time mapping establishes internal energetic consistency across the physical–abstract boundary. Frequency is taken as primitive, phase as the organizing mechanism, and time as emergent ordering. The observed Planck interval arises as the point where ordered phase evolution can no longer be physically sustained.

Whether this coherence threshold can be shown to arise from a deeper stability or fixed-point condition within ECM, rather than appearing as a derived consequence of the mapping, is indeed the natural next step. If such a condition exists, it would elevate the Planck scale from a coherence limit to a predicted attractor of energetic consistency.

For now, ECM maintains a strict separation between physically accountable structure and mathematically admissible but non-observable continuation. Any extension below the Planck scale is treated as speculative and constrained solely by energy conservation, without invoking spacetime, geometry, or relativistic postulates.
I appreciate your insight in identifying precisely where this framework transitions from structural consistency toward genuine predictive fundamentality. That question now defines the direction of further development.

Warm regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur

No comments: