Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20025817 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- <p>This paper explains the conceptual transition from earlier Modal Theory (MT) work<br>to the later framework of General Emergence Mechanics (GEM). Modal Theory pursued a<br>tightly closed flat-space programme built around preferred phase structure, attractor sta<br>bility, and geometric-dynamical self-consistency. General Emergence Mechanics inherits <br>several of those motivating ideas, especially the importance of stable attractors, coherence,<br>and vacuum preference, but reorganises them around a more general question: why do some<br>structures persist while others collapse, drift, or fail? The result is a shift from a framework<br>centred on total geometric closure to one centred on persistence, coherence shells, and the<br>three axes of depth, stiffness, and viscosity or relaxation time. The purpose of the present<br>note is not to restate either framework in full, but to identify what survived the transition,<br>what was abandoned, and why GEM emerged as the more transferable language</p>