December 18, 2025
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment