---
slug: convergence-encyclopedia-schema
title: Convergence Encyclopedia: The Schema
canonical: https://miscsubjects.com/a/convergence-encyclopedia-schema
---

## PART 0: THE SCHEMA

## 0.1 How to Read This Encyclopedia

0.1.1 The Facet System (9 Facets per Node)

Every node in this encyclopedia carries nine facets. No node is complete until all nine are populated. The facets are:

Facet

Label

Description

F1

Tier

T0–T5 assignment with justification

F2

Sources

Named source, year, venue — verifiable

F3

Domains

Fields where the pattern appears

F4

Scale

Spatial or temporal range of instantiation

F5

Falsifier

Observation or experiment that would invalidate the claim

F6

Rival

Strongest alternative explanation in its best form

F7

Independence

Independence assessment: HIGH / MODERATE / LOW, with flags for hidden common causes

F8

Pattern type

Mathematical / structural / energetic / biological / social / philosophical

F9

Maps

Adjacency: which atlas regions (A1–A12) this node belongs to

0.1.2 Tier Definitions (T0–T5)

Tier

Label

Epistemic status

Load-bearing?

T0

Theorem / proof

Mathematical truth; falsifier is “n/a (theorem)”

Yes — logical necessity

T1

Established

Multiple independent sources; consensus in field; reproducible

Yes — carries convergence load

T2

Contested

Active debate; some supporting evidence; critics published

Yes — carries load with uncertainty flag

T3

Interpretive

Philosophical framing; not empirically decidable

No — maps terrain, doesn’t bear structural load

T4

Experiential

Phenomenological report; first-person

No

T5

Metaphorical

Poetic resonance; illustrative only

No — zero load

Rule: Only T0–T2 nodes bear structural load in the convergence claim. T3 nodes map boundary terrain. T4/T5 are admitted only as explicit markers of where the map ends.

0.1.3 Edge Types

Convergence nodes connect via typed edges:

Edge

Meaning

Example

RECURS-WITH

Mutual reinforcement; one pattern enables or appears within another

C03 (symmetry) recurs-with C04 (symmetry-breaking)

CONTRADICTS

Tension; both cannot be fully true; the boundary between them is productive

C06 (compressibility) contradicts C24 (fine-tuning)

INSTANTIATES

Specific case realizes general pattern

C10 (fractals) instantiates C02 (variational) in specific geometric form

IN-TENSION-WITH

Unresolved opposition; both carry load but point in different directions

C24 (fine-tuning) in-tension-with C06 (compressibility)

Rule: Every edge must be typed. Untyped adjacency is not a claim.

## 0.2 The Sharpened Convergence Claim (Post-Audit)

The signature is not the pattern. The signature is the compressibility of the convergence.

v1 stated: “Unrelated systems keep rediscovering the same patterns.” This is true but weak — it invites the cheap objection that we are pattern-matching after the fact.

The corrected claim is sharper:

After every deflation — after removing coincidence, after removing shared mathematical ancestry, after removing observation bias, after removing definitional triviality — what survives is Wigner’s residue: so little math describes so much world. The convergence is not that patterns repeat. The convergence is that the same compressed description applies across scales and domains that share no causal history.

This is the claim that must be defended. It is stronger than “patterns recur” and more falsifiable: if each domain requires its own incompressible mathematical apparatus, the convergence thesis fails.

Wigner’s residue (named after Wigner 1960 “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences”) is the observation that a small set of mathematical structures — linear algebra, calculus, graph theory, information theory — suffices to describe phenomena spanning 60+ orders of magnitude in scale, across domains with no known causal connection.

Falsifier of the sharpened claim: A world (or substantial domain within it) whose regularities require a mathematical framework with no overlap with any other domain’s framework — complete incompressibility of descriptive apparatus across domain boundaries.

Rival: The shared mathematical framework is a selection effect — we (human observers) can only perceive what our cognitive and mathematical tools can represent; the apparent convergence is an artifact of our representational limitations (cf. C24, observer bias).

## 0.3 Audit Findings Summary: v1 → Encyclopedia

A citation audit of the v1 spine (25 nodes) found a 25% defect rate. The following corrections have been applied in this version:

Node-Level Corrections

Node

v1 Error

Correction

C04

Anderson “More Is Different” (1972) cited as symmetry-breaking source

Corrected: Anderson 1963 “Plasmons, Gauge Invariance, and Mass” Phys. Rev. 130:439 is the symmetry-breaking paper. 1972 is the emergence paper (now C21).

C05

Single citation for SOC

Corrected: Split into Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld 1987 PRL 59:381 (1/f noise) and 1988 PRA 38:364 (full SOC theory). Both cited.

C12

Autopoiesis dated 1972

Corrected: Maturana & Varela 1980, D. Reidel, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science vol. 42. The 1972 text was a preprint; 1980 is the canonical publication.

C18

“Waves” treated as single node

Corrected: Split into C18a (linear wave equation, T0) and C18b (excitable media / limit cycles, T1). These share the word “wave” but not mathematics. C18a obeys ∂²u/∂t² = c²∇²u; C18b is nonlinear threshold dynamics.

C16

Branching treated as single scale field

Corrected: Murray’s law (r₀³=r₁³+r₂³, laminar viscous flow), Horton’s laws (river networks, different exponents), and Bejan’s constructal law (engineering optimization) are three different results. Do not claim all branching instances share Murray scaling.

C17

Golden angle formula imprecise

Corrected: Formula is 2π(1−1/φ) ≈ 137.5°, equivalently 360°/φ². Lindstedt 1984 FLAGGED UNVERIFIED — source could not be independently confirmed.

Structural Corrections

Issue

Correction

Independence tags

Re-tagged post-Macy/variational analysis. Nodes C06, C07 now carry explicit flags for Macy Conference cross-pollination.

C02 critical note

Added honest flag: variational principles are definitional universality (almost any smooth law can be written as extremum), not substantive universality. This is a known limitation, not hidden.

T2+ uncertainty flags

All T2 nodes (C12, C13, C19) now carry explicit uncertainty flags in F1 (Tier facet).

C05 critics

Clauset, Shalizi & Newman 2009 and Mitchell, Crutchfield & Hraber 1993 both cited as rivals.

C11 critics

Clauset et al. 2009 caution on scale-free claims cited as rival.

C24 edge

Explicit IN-TENSION-WITH edge to C06 declared.

C25 typing

Fault line between metaphysics and mechanism explicitly typed; no blurring.

Receipt Standards Applied

•	Every T0–T3 claim carries a named falsifier
•	Every T1–T2 claim carries a rival in strongest form
•	Every convergence claim carries an independence check
•	No receipt, no claim. No rival, no load. No falsifier, no science.

---

## Corpus map
- Next: [Convergence Encyclopedia — C01](/a/convergence-encyclopedia-c01)
- Encyclopedia start: [The Schema](/a/convergence-encyclopedia-schema)
- Kin corpora: [Total Structure](/a/oip-total-structure) · [Signature of the Grain](/a/oip-sog-preamble-axioms)
