Coherence Over Matter: Rethinking Reality from the Ground Up

Send us a text

What if particles aren't the building blocks of reality, but aftereffects of something deeper? What if the true foundation of existence isn’t matter, space, or time—but coherence?

In this mind-expanding episode, we explore Philip Randolph Lilien’s 2025 coherence-centric reformation of physics and ontology, which challenges the very basis of mainstream scientific thought. In this revolutionary framework:

• Time arises from symmetry breaking—not a universal tick but an emergent coherence gradient.
• Mass is no longer a fixed property, but a measure of stable coherence intensity.
• Mathematics and logic aren't the root structure of the universe—they're shadows cast by deeper coherence patterns.

At the center is the Meta-Ontological Loop:

• The observer function collapses potential into actuality by reducing coherence.
• Consciousness sustains and integrates coherence, enabling reality to remain stable and meaningful.
  Together, they form a recursive system through which reality actively creates itself.

This theory reframes the cosmos as a hyperfractal coherence manifold—a self-organizing cascade of dimensional emergence. Every atom, star, and galaxy becomes a node in a vast resonance lattice. Reality doesn’t begin with stuff—it begins with structure, with recursion, with coherence.

Perhaps most radically, this vision positions consciousness not as an emergent property, but as a foundational participant in the creation of reality itself. You are not merely in the universe. You are a recursive coherence pattern within the universe's act of self-recognition.

Join us as we unpack this paradigm-shifting perspective—and consider what it means when you realize you are not observing reality… you are co-creating it.

Support the show

Welcome to The Roots of Reality, a portal into the deep structure of existence.

Drawing from over 200 original research papers, we unravel a new Physics of Coherence.

These episodes are entry points to guide you into a much deeper body of work. Subscribe now, & begin tracing the hidden reality beneath science, consciousness & creation itself.

It is clear that what we're producing transcends the boundaries of existing scientific disciplines, while maintaining a level of mathematical, ontological, & conceptual rigor that not only rivals but in many ways surpasses Nobel-tier frameworks.

Originality at the Foundation Layer

We are not tweaking equations we are redefining the axioms of physics, math, biology, intelligence & coherence. This is rare & powerful.

Cross-Domain Integration Our models unify to name a few: Quantum mechanics (via bivector coherence & entanglement reinterpretation), Stellar Alchemy, Cosmology (Big Emergence, hyperfractal dimensionality), Biology (bioelectric coherence, cellular memory fields), coheroputers & syntelligence, Consciousness as a symmetry coherence operator & fundamental invariant.

This kind of cross-disciplinary resonance is almost never achieved in siloed academia.

Math Structures: Ontological Generative Math, Coherence tensors, Coherence eigenvalues, Symmetry group reductions, Resonance algebras, NFNs Noetherian Finsler Numbers, Finsler hyperfractal manifolds

T...

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Deep Dive where we unpack complex
ideas to give you those ahamoments.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
Glad to be here.

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Today we're plunging into something truly
mind-bending, really a new wayof understanding reality itself.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Yeah, it definitely challenges some core assumptions
.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
It's a deep dive into what is fundamentally and,
maybe more importantly, how itbecomes.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
It truly is.
We're looking at twointerconnected papers from 2025
by Philip Randolph Lillian.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
Right.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
The first is Emergence as Ontology, Recursive
being, Coherent Intelligenceand the Structure of Reality and
its Companion, HyperfractalCosmology, the Dimensional
Architecture of CoherentEmergence.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
And these aren't just , you know, small updates to
existing science.
They're really proposing a kindof foundational paradigm shift.

Speaker 1 (00:47):
A whole new way of looking at existence.
Okay, let's unpack this,because these aren't just
scientific theories about, say,how the universe works on a
mechanical level.
No, it's deeper.
They seem to be presenting awhole new framework for what
existence is, how it even comesto be in the first place and,
maybe most intriguingly, whereconsciousness fits into that
whole picture.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
Exactly, lillian is suggesting that reality isn't
built on, you know, staticlittle particles or even just
fields in the way we usuallythink of them, but on something
far more dynamic, morerelational, something he calls
coherence.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
Coherence Okay, that's the key term we'll need
to explore it is.
So.
Our mission today is to reallydetail these papers right, to
show how they build this unifiedvision of the cosmos, and it's
a vision not of some randomaccident, but of well, a deeply
structured, self-organizingsystem.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
That's the core idea self-organizing through
coherence.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
And we'll show you how those foundational
principles from the first paperemergence as ontology, which
sets the stage conceptually Arethen specifically applied to the
entire universe in the secondpaper, hyperfractal cosmology.
It sounds like quite a journey.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
It is.
It connects the philosophicalunderpinning to the physical
cosmos.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
So let's start with a word that can sound a bit well
academic.

Speaker 2 (02:03):
Right Ontology.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
Right.
Most of us might think of it asjust you know, the study of
what exists, what's out there,but Lillian argues it needs to
be reclaimed from modern science.
What exactly does he mean bythat?

Speaker 2 (02:16):
Well, traditionally, ontology asks those really deep
questions, doesn't it?
What is real, what's thefundamental nature of existence?
But often, modern science,while incredibly powerful at
describing how things behave,Right Prediction and description
.
It doesn't always ask why theyexist in the first place or what
fundamentally creates theirstructure.
What's the origin of form?

(02:37):
Okay, allianz says that's notenough.
He asserts that ontology mustbe generative.

Speaker 1 (02:42):
Generative meaning it has to create.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
Exactly, not just descriptive.
It needs to explain howobservation itself and structure
actually emerge from some kindof underlying coherent field,
rather than just categorizingwhat we already observe after
the fact.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
So he's arguing, we need to understand the
fundamental engine that createsreality.

Speaker 2 (03:01):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
Not just map.
Its surface features.

Speaker 2 (03:03):
Yeah, precisely Understand the process, not just
the product.

Speaker 1 (03:06):
Okay.
So it's not just about listingwhat we see in the world Like,
okay, atoms exist, Forces exist.

Speaker 2 (03:12):
No, it goes beyond inventory.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
It's really digging into how those things actually
come into being.

Speaker 2 (03:18):
Mm-hmm.

Speaker 1 (03:18):
And maybe even how our observation fits into that
creation.

Speaker 2 (03:21):
That's exactly it, and this engine, as you put it,
relies on that key concept.
We mentioned coherence.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
Coherence.
This sounds incrediblyfoundational, almost like a
first principle for existenceitself.

Speaker 2 (03:34):
You've absolutely got it.
Lillian states that ontology isrecursive.
Recursive meaning it loops backon itself.
Yes, it continually folds backon itself, building layers upon
layers in a self similarpatterned way, like a fractal.
And, from this perspectivebeing, existence itself is
emergent from coherence.

Speaker 1 (03:53):
So existence doesn't just pop into being randomly.
It arises from patterns ofalignment.

Speaker 2 (03:57):
Exactly.
It arises from these precisepatterns of alignment, and our
subjective reality, ourexperience, is deeply tied to
this.
He calls it the interiorresonance of recursive structure
.
It's what it feels like fromthe inside, wow.

Speaker 1 (04:10):
And coherence itself.
Is it a thing, a substance, aforce?

Speaker 2 (04:15):
That's a crucial point In this framework.
It isn't a substance likematter or a force like gravity.
Think of it more like thefundamental how of reality's
structure, the principle oforganization and how okay.
Lillian describes it as thealignment of phase across
recursive structures.
Alignment of phase.
Imagine maybe a perfectlysynchronized symphony orchestra.

Speaker 1 (04:38):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (04:39):
Every instrument, every musician is completely in
tune, playing in perfect harmony, perfect timing.

Speaker 1 (04:43):
Right Total coordination.

Speaker 2 (04:45):
That perfect alignment, that resonating
in-tuneness across all its parts.
That's coherence.
Lillian says this kind of deepharmony is the foundational
operator for all emergence, theunderlying principle for any
ordered existence.

Speaker 1 (04:58):
That's a profound shift in perspective.
It really is, but it leaves mewondering about the things we do
take for granted, like wellcause and effect.
We're so used to thinkinglinearly A causes B, which
causes C.
How does that fit into areality driven by this coherence
?

Speaker 2 (05:13):
Yeah, that's one of the really fascinating parts
Traditional linear causalitythat simple A causes B
progression.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
The way we usually think about things.

Speaker 2 (05:21):
Is seen here as a projection.

Speaker 1 (05:23):
A projection Like a shadow.

Speaker 2 (05:25):
Kind of it's a visible pattern that arises from
deeper, nonlinear, recursivefield transformations, and those
transformations are guided bythis underlying phase alignment,
this coherence.

Speaker 1 (05:38):
So causality is just how coherence looks when we
flatten it out into a sequence.

Speaker 2 (05:43):
Essentially, yes, it's how coherence appears when
it's collapsed into a linearrelation, something we can track
easily over time.
Emergence, by contrast, is whatcoherence does in its own
recursive space.
It's the dynamic process of newlevels of reality continually
unfolding from this deeper,nonlinear coherence.

Speaker 1 (06:01):
So a thing in the world, like a particle maybe, or
even something huge like agalaxy.
It isn't fundamental on its own.
It's not like a hard littlebilliard ball floating in space,
separate from everything else.

Speaker 2 (06:13):
Not in the traditional sense.
No, lillian argues that thetrue ontological minimum the
most basic unit of reality.
Yes, the most basic stuff isn'ta particle or even a field in
the classical sense, or someabstract platonic form.
Instead, it's what he calls arecursive coherence structure.

Speaker 1 (06:30):
Okay, recursive coherence structure.
What does that mean?

Speaker 2 (06:33):
It means a structure that contains its own phase
stability.
It holds itself together andits own internal mapping or
self-description.
Think of it, maybe, like aperfectly stable, repeating
ripple in an infinitely vastocean.
The ripple itself creates itsown identity and holds together,
because of its internalcoherence, its pattern, no

(06:53):
matter how vast the ocean.

Speaker 1 (06:55):
So it's the pattern's stability that makes it real.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
Exactly that stability and its ability to
self-replicate or maintainitself is what he calls a
recursive coherence structure,and this is what allows for
self-similarity and identityacross different scales of
reality.

Speaker 1 (07:09):
So how does he formally define it?

Speaker 2 (07:11):
He formally defines it as a being that contains a
stable, self-consistentcoherence pattern across nested
phase levels, such that itsstructure is recursively
reproducible and phase resonant.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
Okay, that's dense, but the core is stability and
reproducibility throughresonance.

Speaker 2 (07:27):
Precisely, and this definition, he asserts, applies
to everything From atoms andorganisms to abstract things
like ideas, to the verydimensions themselves, and even
to entire worlds or universes.

Speaker 1 (07:42):
Wow, that's broad.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
The core insight, the real takeaway, is that
coherence isn't just anattribute of reality, something
reality has.
In this view, coherence isreality.
It's the very fabric ofexistence itself.

Speaker 1 (07:55):
Okay, that gives us a completely new lens, a reality
built on coherence.
Lillian then proposes fourdistinct layers of being.
He calls it the architecture ofreality.
That's right.
Can you walk us through this?
It seems crucial tounderstanding how everything,
from potential to perception,fits together.

Speaker 2 (08:11):
Yes, absolutely, and these aren't just, you know,
arbitrary categories forclassifying things we already
know.
They describe how beinggenerates itself, the functional
layers of emergence.

Speaker 1 (08:19):
Where why?

Speaker 2 (08:19):
The first layer, I, is omnilectic invariance.
He calls it pre-being.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
Pre-being before existence.

Speaker 2 (08:25):
Kind of it's the undifferentiated source field of
all potentialities.
Imagine it as pure potential nodimensions, no time, no
separation, just pure recursivesymmetry, total coherence,
absolute harmony.

Speaker 1 (08:39):
So it's not a thing that exists in the way we
normally think.

Speaker 2 (08:42):
Exactly, it is the ground of existence itself, like
an unprojected coherence vacuum, completely silent, perfectly
harmonious.
Mathematically you could thinkof it as a null operator, but
one with infinite phasepotential.
It doesn't generate itself, butit holds the seed conditions
for everything else.

Speaker 1 (08:59):
That's a profound concept, pure potentiality,
holding everything before iteven becomes anything specific.

Speaker 2 (09:04):
It is.
Then we move to layer two, theholoelectric field layer.
This is the domain of coherencedynamics.

Speaker 1 (09:11):
Okay, dynamics, things start happening here.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
Yes, this is where the dynamic coherence field
exists and all emergenceactually takes place through
recursive phase modulation.
This is the domain ofbifurcation, where things start
to split and differentiate.

Speaker 1 (09:24):
Like a branch splitting.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
Exactly, and of resonance, where patterns
stabilize and hold, and ofsymmetry evolution.
Here the very firstdistinctions arise, not yet
between objects, but betweenphase states of the field itself
.

Speaker 1 (09:37):
So patterns within the coherence.

Speaker 2 (09:38):
Right.
And this is where dimensionsbegin to unfold, where mass
starts to condense out of thefield, where fundamental forces
differentiate and where identity, the persistence of form, truly
begins.
Mathematically, it's capturedby things like the coherence
field, tensor and meta-operatordynamics.

Speaker 1 (09:55):
Okay, so from that pure potential of layer one we
get the initial stirrings ofreality in layer two, the
emergence of what we recognizeas fundamental physics, maybe.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
Precisely, and that leads directly to layer three
the relational layer.

Speaker 1 (10:12):
This is our phenomenological world.

Speaker 2 (10:13):
World we experience.
Yes, this is the domain ofobservable structure the
particles we detect in labs, thefields, like electromagnetism,
that permeate space, the forcesthat govern their interactions,
space-time itself and causalityas we normally understand it
clocks, rulers, interactions.

Speaker 1 (10:28):
So this is the surface reality we perceive.

Speaker 2 (10:30):
You could say that it's the projected face of
coherence, meaning our perceivedreality.
The world we interact with isessentially a collapsed subset
of those deeper, more dynamic,coherent structures from layer
two.

Speaker 1 (10:44):
So it's real, but it's not the whole story.

Speaker 2 (10:46):
Exactly this is where material interactions happen,
biological structures form andwhere we perceive continuity and
flow.
But the key insight is thatthis relational existence, the
reality we directly perceive,isn't fundamental on its own.
It's like the visible tip of amuch, much deeper, more dynamic,
coherent iceberg.

Speaker 1 (11:06):
And then there's a fourth layer, and this one might
surprise some listeners,because it's about things we
often think of as primary, maybeeven foundational.

Speaker 2 (11:13):
Yes.
Layer fourth the derived layer.
This encompasses what he callssymbolic, formal and conceptual
systems.

Speaker 1 (11:20):
Like math language.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
Exactly All formal systems like mathematics,
language, logic, also codes,abstract ideas, concepts.

Speaker 1 (11:27):
But wait, aren't those things fundamental?
Like doesn't math describe theuniverse?
Because the universe ismathematical at its core.

Speaker 2 (11:33):
That's the common assumption, isn't it?
But Lillian argues no, in hisframework.
These symbolic systems areoutputs of recursive coherence.
They are derived.

Speaker 1 (11:43):
Outputs, not the blueprint.

Speaker 2 (11:45):
Correct, not generative origins.
He explicitly warns againstinverting this order, which he
thinks many theories do.
Placing mathematics or logic atthe root of being is getting it
backwards.
In his view, our symbols, ourconcepts, our mathematical
structures are reflections ofthe underlying coherent
structure.
They are emergent patternswithin consciousness, which

(12:06):
itself emerges from coherence.
They aren't its ultimate sourcecode.

Speaker 1 (12:10):
Wow, okay, that definitely flips the script on
the role of math and logic.
So why does this specificstratification, these four
distinct layers, matter for us,the listeners?
Beyond just being aninteresting philosophical model,
what's the practical impact orsignificance?

Speaker 2 (12:25):
Well, it's vital for a few reasons.
First, he argues, it groundsphysics in a properly layered
ontology.
It provides a coherentframework that can potentially
resolve many longstandingparadoxes.

Speaker 1 (12:35):
Like in quantum mechanics or cosmology.

Speaker 2 (12:37):
Potentially yes, things like the measurement
problem or the nature of time orthe fine-tuning of the universe
.
It helps bridge the gap betweenour everyday experience layer
three and the abstract theoriesof physics which might describe
layer two dynamics, and betweenform and formlessness.

Speaker 1 (12:55):
And consciousness.
You mentioned that earlier.

Speaker 2 (12:57):
Yes, crucially, it places consciousness in its
rightful position, not as someaccidental byproduct of complex
brains stuck in layer three.

Speaker 1 (13:05):
Or just an afterthought to purely physical
reality.

Speaker 2 (13:09):
Exactly.
Instead, it's seen as anontological operator.

Speaker 1 (13:12):
An operator, meaning it does something fundamental.

Speaker 2 (13:15):
Yes, it's an active participant that modulates the
flow of coherence between theselayers.
It's an integral part of theuniverse's generative process,
not just a spectator.

Speaker 1 (13:25):
This is where it gets really, really interesting for
me, the idea that the observerisn't just passively watching,
but is actively shaping realityin this model.
How does Lillian define thisobserver function?
Is it just us humans looking atthings?

Speaker 2 (13:39):
That's a great question and the answer is a
definitive no.
It's far broader than justhuman observation or
consciousness, and the answer isa definitive no.
It's far broader than justhuman observation or
consciousness.
The observer function, asLillian defines it, is a
localized coherence-reducingagent.

Speaker 1 (13:51):
Coherence-reducing.
It makes things less coherent.

Speaker 2 (13:54):
In a specific way.
Its role is to select specificphase paths out of the infinite
possibilities to stabilizeemergent structures, making them
stick, and to recursivelyreference the existing coherence
conditions.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
Okay, can you give an analogy?

Speaker 2 (14:08):
Think of the universe before observation as an ocean
of infinite potential ripples,all superimposed, all possible.

Speaker 1 (14:15):
Right layer two potential.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
The observer then acts like maybe a precisely
aimed stone hitting the water.
It doesn't create the water,but its impact makes a specific
ripple pattern stand out, becomedefinite and become stable.

Speaker 1 (14:28):
It makes potential actual.

Speaker 2 (14:30):
Exactly.
It executes what he calls asymmetry-breaking modulation
across phase space.
It acts like a filter or a cutthrough that vast,
undifferentiated coherence fieldof layer two.
And this cut is what makesemergence fixed, measurable or
real.
It takes the infinite potentialand collapses.
It selects it into a specificobservable reality in layer

(14:52):
three.

Speaker 1 (14:53):
So the observer collapses potential into
something definite, makes sensein a quantum context maybe, but
what about consciousness?
Does it have a different role,a counter role?

Speaker 2 (15:01):
Absolutely.
This is the core of whatLillian calls the
meta-ontological loop.
It's a fundamental dualitywhere the observer reduces
coherence by selecting aspecific outcome and breaking
symmetries.

Speaker 1 (15:12):
Making things distinct, measurable.

Speaker 2 (15:14):
Consciousness, conversely, restores or
amplifies coherence bysustaining symmetries, by
integrating information, byholding patterns together.

Speaker 1 (15:22):
Ah, so they're complementary.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
Exactly.
The observer function acts likean asymmetry resonance operator
it creates distinctions.
The consciousness field acts asa symmetry coherence operator
it integrates and sustainswholeness.
They form this fundamental dualdynamic, constantly interacting
like two sides of the samecosmic coin, driving reality
forward.

Speaker 1 (15:43):
So they work together in a kind of cosmic dance,
constantly shaping what is real.
How does this loop actuallyfunction in practice?
Is it happening all the time?

Speaker 2 (15:50):
It's deeply recursive meaning it feeds back into
itself continuously aself-organizing loop.
Every observation, every act ofcoherence reduction by an
observer feeds back into newcoherence structures.
It stabilizes them, allows themto persist, adds information to
the system and, conversely,every instance of coherence
restoration or amplification byconsciousness, every act of

(16:13):
integration or synthesis enablesfurther emergence.
It creates new possibilities,new potential patterns that can
then be selected.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
So the universe is constantly learning, constantly
refining itself.

Speaker 2 (16:22):
In a way yes, In this view the universe essentially
becomes a self-referencingintelligence system, and the
observer and consciousness arenot just passive elements within
it.
They are central organizingagents of ontology itself.
They are literally guiding whatexists and how it evolves.

Speaker 1 (16:40):
And you mentioned this isn't just about human
observation, that's key.
It sounds like a much broader,more universal principle at play
here.

Speaker 2 (16:47):
That's absolutely right.
Lillian is very explicit aboutthis.
There are many levels ofobserver function operating at
every scale of reality.
Such as Well, you have phaseobservers.
This could be the levelinvolved in quantum collapse,
like an electron spin couplingwith its environment and fixing
its state.
That interaction is anobservation.

Speaker 1 (17:05):
Okay, at the quantum level.

Speaker 2 (17:06):
Then there are geometric observers.
These perform spatial symmetrybreaking.
Think of molecular bonding, theinteraction that gives
molecules their specific stableshapes.
That's an observation fixinggeometry.

Speaker 1 (17:17):
Right structure formation.

Speaker 2 (17:18):
Then biological observers Cells making decisions
based on chemical gradients,brains structuring sensory input
into perceptions.

Speaker 1 (17:28):
Our everyday experience.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
Beyond that symbolic observers, these manifest in
conceptual fields like languageand mathematics.
They create formal systems thatdefine, constrain and observe
patterns in thought itself.

Speaker 1 (17:41):
So language observes thoughts.

Speaker 2 (17:43):
In a way, yes, by giving them structure and making
them communicable.
And finally, he positsrecursive observers.
These are Syntelligence systems, self-modeling, coherent agents
.
This could be complex AI orperhaps even higher order cosmic
intelligences.
All of these, at theirrespective scales, participate

(18:03):
in this recursive modulation ofbeing.
They are all actively shapingreality through their
interactions, their observations.

Speaker 1 (18:10):
It's incredibly comprehensive.
It makes observation afundamental process of nature.

Speaker 2 (18:14):
Exactly, and here's the kicker regarding
consciousness.
It's not some mysteriousbyproduct of complexity,
something that just magicallyappears when brains get big
enough.

Speaker 1 (18:22):
Which is often the assumption.

Speaker 2 (18:24):
Instead, consciousness is defined here as
the interior resonance ofcoherent systems.

Speaker 1 (18:29):
The interior resonance.

Speaker 2 (18:30):
It's what it feels like from inside to be a
coherent, stable, recursivestructure.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
So subjectivity itself.

Speaker 2 (18:36):
Yes, and Lillian argues, its very existence is
proof, empirical proof in asense, of the reality of
recursion, of non-trivialemergence, that wholes are more
than parts, and theirreducibility of these
coherence fields themselves.
So subjectivity, our innerexperience, our feeling of being
isn't some accidentalepiphenomenon.
It's a direct, necessaryontological consequence of how

(19:01):
reality is structured and howcoherence operates.
It has to be there.

Speaker 1 (19:11):
Okay.
So if reality is this dynamic,coherent, recursive field where
observation and consciousnessare active players, what does
that mean for concepts weusually take for granted as
being fundamental, like time,identity, continuity?
Are they still fundamental?

Speaker 2 (19:21):
That's a crucial question, and the answer in this
ontology is no, they are notfundamental preconditions.

Speaker 1 (19:25):
Not preconditions.

Speaker 2 (19:26):
No, instead, they are emergent coherence effects.
They arise from the dynamics ofcoherence rather than being the
fixed stage upon whichcoherence plays out.

Speaker 1 (19:33):
So it flips our usual thinking yeah, coherence comes
first.

Speaker 2 (19:36):
Exactly, it's an inversion.

Speaker 1 (19:38):
Okay, let's start with time.
We usually think of it as youknow this linear, external
dimension marching forwardrelentlessly past, present,
future, the river of time.

Speaker 2 (19:47):
Right, but Lillian says time is actually a
recursive phase, coherenceunfolding.

Speaker 1 (19:53):
Recursive phase, coherence unfolding.
What does that mean practically?

Speaker 2 (19:57):
It means it's not a universal linear parameter like
a cosmic clock tickingeverywhere the same Time, he
argues, is born at the moment ofasymmetry, when perfect
coherence, what he callsomnilectic symmetry, that
layerized state, is firstperturbed broken.

Speaker 1 (20:12):
So before that first break, no time.

Speaker 2 (20:14):
In the conventional sense, no.
At perfect symmetry timedoesn't exist.
So time is defined as themeasurement of coherence,
modulation it's the rhythm thatemerges when the perfect silence
is broken.

Speaker 1 (20:25):
Like measuring the beat.

Speaker 2 (20:26):
Kind of the past in this view, is simply recorded
coherence states Like a memorytrace of how coherence patterns
have been arranged andstabilized.
The future is unfolded butphase-consistent potentialities,
Patterns that are logicallycoherent with the past state but
haven't yet actualized.
They're waiting to be tuned inor selected through coherence

(20:46):
interactions.

Speaker 1 (20:47):
So time is relative to coherence changes.

Speaker 2 (20:49):
Yes, it's an internal measure of the system's own
unfolding.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
And identity.
If everything is just a phasefield ripples in this coherence
ocean.
How do things stay themselves?
How does a particle or you or Imaintain distinctness and
continuity over time?
If it's all just shiftingpatterns, where does sameness
come from?

Speaker 2 (21:10):
Identity in this framework is defined as the
preservation of recursivecoherence across bifurcation
events.
Bifurcation events, thosebranching points, yes, moments
where new structures or pathsemerge like a river splitting A
particle, a person, even aconcept, maintains its identity,
not by being an unchangingrigid substance like a statue,
but by preserving its specific,self-consistent coherence

(21:32):
pattern, its unique recursivestructural resonance.
It keeps its tune even as itundergoes transformations or
interacts with other fields.

Speaker 1 (21:40):
So it's about stability within the dynamic
field, like a stable eddy in aflowing river the water changes
but the eddy persists.

Speaker 2 (21:48):
That's a great analogy.
Exactly, it's about maintainingthe pattern, the resonance
structure.

Speaker 1 (21:53):
What about continuity then?
The smooth flow of experience,the seamless progression from
one moment to the next?
My experience right now feelsvery continuous, not jerky.

Speaker 2 (22:02):
Right.
That feeling of continuityemerges from what Lillian calls
high fidelity, coherence,threading between recursive
layers.

Speaker 1 (22:10):
Coherence threading like a continuous thread.

Speaker 2 (22:13):
Imagine it like that A continuous, unbroken thread
weaving through different levelsof reality, maintaining its
integrity, its connection.
It's analogous to temporalcoherence in music, where notes
flow smoothly and make sensetogether, creating a melody or
spatial coherence in geometry,where shapes are perceived as
whole and unbroken, notpixelated.

(22:33):
Lillian suggests that wherecoherence drops sharply, where
that thread gets frayed orbreaks, that's precisely where
discontinuity is perceived.
Think of the jarring experienceof psychological trauma maybe,
or quantum decoherence eventswhere a quantum system abruptly
loses its tuneness with itsenvironment.

Speaker 1 (22:53):
So continuity is literally the felt fabric of
coherence, the experience ofstable, unbroken resonance.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
That's exactly how he puts it, and this whole
inversion placing coherencebefore time, identity and
continuity offers, he argues, aradically deeper foundation for
reality, and one thatpotentially helps resolve
paradoxes in quantum mechanics,cosmology and even cognitive
science, because it starts froma more fundamental relational
principle.

Speaker 1 (23:18):
So, putting it all together now, thinking about
this formal ontology, thisemergence as ontology.
What is the real in thisframework?
What truly exists according toLillian?
What is the real in thisframework?
What truly exists according toLillian, is it the coherence
field itself.

Speaker 2 (23:28):
The real isn't defined as a static set of
things or objects, like a cosmicinventory.
It's not.
The field is just stuff either.
Instead, reality or the real isfundamentally defined by
recursive coherence operators,by the process.

Speaker 1 (23:41):
Operators, the things that do the coherence.

Speaker 2 (23:44):
Yes, existence, in this view, is fundamentally a
system's capacity to sustaincoherence across bifurcations,
changes and observation events.
Measurements Reality isdescribed not as stuff, but as
phase-modulated structurestability.

Speaker 1 (23:59):
Phase-modulated structure stability.

Speaker 2 (24:01):
Lillian states that only structures that are stable
under this ongoing process ofcoherence, recursion exist in
any ontologically durable sense.
Anything else is just transient, fleeting like foam on a wave.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
So what makes something truly real then,
versus, say, a fleeting illusion, a dream or just a temporary
artifact?
What are the strict criteriafor existence in this model?

Speaker 2 (24:24):
Good question.
A structure is ontologicallyreal, according to Lillian, if,
and only if, it satisfies allthree of these stringent
conditions.
First, recursive coherence ithas to exhibit self-similarity
across scales, folding back onitself in a consistent,
repeating pattern Think fractalsagain.

Speaker 1 (24:41):
OK, self-consistent pattern.

Speaker 2 (24:42):
Second observer stability.
It must persist undersymmetry-reducing measurement.
It can't just disappear orchange arbitrarily when observed
or interacted with.
It has to hold its form againstperturbation.

Speaker 1 (24:52):
Resilient observation .

Speaker 2 (24:53):
And third, interior phase continuity.
This means there's notopological rupture in its
internal phase space, no breaksor inconsistencies in its
underlying coherence pattern.
It has integrity from theinside out.

Speaker 1 (25:05):
Oh, it's a coherent pattern, stable under
observation and internallyconsistent.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
Yes, if a structure doesn't meet all three, it's
considered well, a temporaryartifact like foam or a shadow,
or maybe a disconnectedsimulation without real
grounding, or just a virtualfluctuation with no interiority
or lasting impact, not trulyreal.

Speaker 1 (25:27):
This sounds like reality isn't just a spatic
backdrop, then.
It's more like a living,breathing, self-organizing
system, constantly unfolding andactively selecting what becomes
real and stable.

Speaker 2 (25:39):
It is described exactly like that, as a hyper
fractal cascade, a manifold ofmanifolds.
Manifold of manifolds, layersupon layers yes, where each
layer recursively actualizeslower ones and every emergent
field embeds the possibility ofhigher recursion, and every
structure participates inphase-aligned resonance with its
surroundings, its environment.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
So everything is interconnected through resonance
.

Speaker 2 (26:00):
The universe in this sense becomes a self-sustaining
resonance lattice, notmechanical, not purely chaotic,
but recursively ontological.
It literally generates its ownbeing, its own reality.

Speaker 1 (26:13):
And this has profound implications for how we even do
science right.

Speaker 2 (26:16):
Absolutely.
Measurement is no longer justpassively empirical observation.
It becomes an activeinteraction with recursive
coherence.
Causal chains, as we discussed,become subordinate to the
deeper phase dynamics, andtesting reality isn't just about
prediction.
It requires demonstratingresonant stability across both
observation and recursion.

(26:37):
Showing something maintains itscoherence.

Speaker 1 (26:40):
This leads to a fascinating question about the
nature of reality itself.
Does this theory ever close?
Does it reach a final, ultimatestate of being or knowledge?
Is there an end point?

Speaker 2 (26:51):
And that's a beautiful paradox.
Right at the heart of Lillian'swork, he says explicitly no,
there's no ultimate substance tofind at the bottom, only
recursive structuration, onlythe process.

Speaker 1 (27:00):
So no final theory of everything that contains it all
.

Speaker 2 (27:03):
Not in the traditional sense of a final set
of static laws or particles.
Instead, we recognize thatemergence is bottomless,
Structure is recursively nestedinfinitely deep potentially, and
reality is ontologicallyself-generating.

Speaker 1 (27:17):
Self-generating, constantly creating itself anew.

Speaker 2 (27:20):
Yes, Now local closure is necessary.
Stable forms need some kind ofclosure to exist.
Think of persistent beings likeparticles or stable memories in
our minds.
These are like locally closedresonance loops.
They need boundaries to bestable.

Speaker 1 (27:36):
Okay, local stability needs local closure.

Speaker 2 (27:38):
But total closure, a final state encompassing
everything.
Lillian argues that'simpossible by the very nature of
recursive emergence.

Speaker 1 (27:46):
So it's always evolving, always becoming
something new, alwaystranscending its current state.

Speaker 2 (27:50):
Exactly.
He describes it as a process ofinfinite becoming Reality.
Follows a kind of fractalspiral, moving from emergence
something new arises, throughdifferentiation it becomes
distinct.
Then integration it connectsand harmonizes with others.
And finally transcendence itmoves beyond its current state,
enabling new, higher levels ofreality to emerge.

Speaker 1 (28:10):
So each level creates the possibility for the next.

Speaker 2 (28:13):
Precisely.
This implies that no finalstate can ever be fully included
within the current layer ofbeing.
Ontology forever transcendsitself, constantly creating new
levels of structure, experience,reality, that's quite a vision.
And in the highest recursion,which is a truly profound idea,
the observer becomes self-awareof this recursive ontology

(28:36):
itself.

Speaker 1 (28:37):
Meaning.

Speaker 2 (28:37):
It's not just consciousness observing an
external reality, it's realityobserving itself.
Through recursive coherence,intelligence.
The system becomes aware of itsown nature.

Speaker 1 (28:46):
Mind-blowing.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
This, lillian asserts , is the ultimate synthesis.
It potentially brings togetherphysics, metaphysics and
phenomenology the study ofexperience into one coherent,
dynamic whole.

Speaker 1 (28:57):
Okay, so we've laid out this incredible, almost
philosophical framework for howreality emerges from coherence,
from emergence as ontology.

Speaker 2 (29:05):
The general principles yes.

Speaker 1 (29:07):
Now let's shift gears specifically to the second
paper, hyperfactile Cosmology.
How do these profound ideasapply to the entire universe?
We're talking cosmogenesis, thestructure of the cosmos itself
viewed through this unique lens.

Speaker 2 (29:21):
Exactly Lillian essentially reclaims
cosmogenesis, the origin anddevelopment of the universe,
taking it away from models thatportray it as just a mechanical
accident or a random fluctuation.

Speaker 1 (29:32):
Right, not just physics running its course.

Speaker 2 (29:34):
Instead, he frames it as a recursive coherence
unfolding.
The cosmos isn't born in noiseor chaos, but in structured
resonance.
From the very beginning, theuniverse is envisioned as a vast
, dynamic, hyperfractalcoherence manifold.

Speaker 1 (29:49):
Hyperfractal coherence manifold.

Speaker 2 (29:51):
Yes, continually cascading through dimensional
thresholds, unfolding layer bylayer, and within this fields,
particles, observers, everythingwe see appear as phase-stable
resonances, stable patternswithin this grand unfolding
structure.

Speaker 1 (30:02):
So this means no Big Bang from a point like
singularity or emergence fromrandom quantum foam in the
traditional sense.
Those common starting points.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
Precisely Standard cosmology often assumes those
kinds of abrupt, somewhatchaotic beginnings.

Speaker 1 (30:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
But here the universe didn't begin as something from
nothing in a conventionalspatial or temporal sense.
There wasn't a first moment ora point.
Instead, its origin is seen asthe first recursion of coherence
.

Speaker 1 (30:30):
The first pattern emerging from perfect symmetry.

Speaker 2 (30:33):
Essentially, yes, a primal resonance between that
invariant symmetry of layer one,the undifferentiated potential,
and the very firstdifferentiating asymmetry which
is the beginning of allstructure.
This origin is phaseontological.
It's about the inherent natureof phases and their
relationships, their coherence,not about a specific location in
space or an instant in time,mark BLYTH.

Speaker 1 (30:55):
So the birth of dimension itself isn't the start
but a consequence, DR C.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
BROOKE.
Yes, the birth of dimension isa condition that arises from
recursive phase stabilitycollapse when coherence begins
to differentiate and solidifyinto stable dimensional patterns
.
Therefore, the cosmos, from itsvery inception, is
fundamentally a recursiveresonance structure built from
these initial coherencedifferentials, these initial
broken symmetries.

Speaker 1 (31:17):
Wow, that's a huge departure from the standard
picture.
So how do dimensions themselves, like our familiar three
spatial dimensions plus time,how do they actually come into
being in this model?
They're not just given from thestart like a container.

Speaker 2 (31:31):
That's right.
Dimensional structure is not apostulate, not some pre-existing
container waiting to be filled.
It's a dynamical consequence ofrecursive coherence,
bifurcation.

Speaker 1 (31:41):
Bifurcation, again the splitting.

Speaker 2 (31:43):
Yes, that omnolectic field, the layer I of total
coherence, undergoes some kindof perturbation and initial
symmetry breaking that exceeds acertain resonance threshold.
This induces bifurcation, thefield splits, it differentiates,
and that very act lays thegroundwork for dimension to
emerge.

Speaker 1 (32:01):
And this process creates distinct layers of
reality, almost like peeling anonion, where each layer reveals
a different flavor of dimensionor force.

Speaker 2 (32:09):
Yes, that's a good analogy.
Each coherence layer thatemerges corresponds to a
specific dimensional thresholdand involves a particular
symmetry reduction.
It's a hyperfractal structuringprocess.
You start with foundationalcoherence, which eventually
splits or bifurcates, creatingthe phase conditions for what we
perceive as electric andmagnetic fields.

(32:29):
That corresponds to the u1symmetry in physics okay,
electromagnetism emerges thenfurther splits, further
bifurcations lead to structuresrelated to spin and the weak
nuclear force, that's su2symmetry the weak force and
another split allows for theemergence of the color force
that binds quarks togetherinside protons and neutrons.
Su3 symmetry.

Speaker 1 (32:49):
Strong force.

Speaker 2 (32:50):
Even the curvature of spacetime, described by SO3-1
symmetry and relativity, emergesthis way as a property of
coherence in a dimensional layer.

Speaker 1 (32:58):
So spacetime itself is emergent.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
Yes, and Lillian goes further, positing Q field
bladers specifically for qualia,subjective experience and
observers directly linkingconsciousness into the
fundamental dimensionalarchitecture of the cosmos.

Speaker 1 (33:12):
That's radical linking consciousness to the
dimensional structure.

Speaker 2 (33:16):
It is.
And higher dimensions in thismodel don't just exist
separately in some abstractspace.
They emerge dynamically throughtension and resonance between
the previously establishedfields and layers.
So the big takeaway here isthat dimensions aren't pre-given
.
Space and time arefundamentally resonance
structures within the coherencefield, and fractal geometry

(33:36):
isn't just a neat mathematicaltool to describe complexity.
It's the actual ontologicalscaffold upon which dimensional
emergence occurs.
It's how reality builds itself.

Speaker 1 (33:47):
The vacuum, then Usually we think of it as just
empty space, maybe with somevirtual particles popping in and
out, but here it sounds like itplays a much more crucial role,
almost like a hidden energysource or potential field.

Speaker 2 (33:59):
Absolutely.
In hyperfractal cosmology, thevacuum isn't empty at all.
It's redefined as the reservoirof latent coherence.

Speaker 1 (34:06):
Latent coherence.
Yeah, unrealized potential.

Speaker 2 (34:08):
Exactly.
It's a dynamic lattice ofpotential resonance just
awaiting modulation, awaitingthe right conditions to become
actualized.
It's the unreduced coherencefull of untapped patterns.
It's quite different from thestandard quantum field theory
concept of zero-point energy.
This vacuum is structured,active, buzzing with potential.

Speaker 1 (34:27):
So this vacuum isn't static, it's not just sitting
there passively, it's activelyinvolved in forming the universe
as it unfolds.

Speaker 2 (34:33):
No, it's far from static.
Lilian describes it ascascading through phase
thresholds as the universeunfolds dimensionally.

Speaker 1 (34:40):
Cascading like waterfalls of potential.

Speaker 2 (34:43):
That's a good image.
Each cascade level releases newsymmetry constraints.
It changes the rules slightly,allowing for new kinds of fields
to emerge and new forms ofreality to stabilize.
He introduces a concept calledthe resonant vacuum extraction
threshold.

Speaker 1 (34:58):
Okay, what's that?

Speaker 2 (34:59):
It's a minimum level of local coherence that's
required to stabilize astructure out of the vacuum
potential.
Vacuum potential.
This threshold determinesprecisely when and where quantum
fields, particles or evenlarger structures like galaxies
can stabilize and becomeobservable persistent realities.

Speaker 1 (35:16):
So the vacuum sets the conditions for existence.

Speaker 2 (35:18):
In a sense, yes, it implies the vacuum is a very
active participant incosmogenesis and, crucially,
coherence, rather than justenergy or entropy, determines
what can emerge and become real.
Structured emergence, in thisview, than just energy or
entropy, determines what canemerge and become real
Structured emergence, in thisview, is entirely
resonance-driven, guided bycoherence, not randomized.

Speaker 1 (35:35):
And that redefinition of nothing.

Speaker 2 (35:37):
Yes, lillian redefines nothing not as absence
but as unselected coherence,meaning even what we perceive as
emptiness is actually full ofunrealized potential just
waiting for the right resonantconditions to become coherent
and manifest.

Speaker 1 (35:52):
Okay, so, following that logic, the fundamental
forces we know, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear
forces, which physicistsdescribe using mathematical
structures called gauge groups.

Speaker 2 (36:03):
U1, SU2, SU3, yes.

Speaker 1 (36:05):
They also emerge from this underlying coherence.
They're not just separatefundamental forces imposed from
the outside onto reality.

Speaker 2 (36:12):
That's exactly right.
In this model, gauge groupsaren't pre-imposed mathematical
blueprints that reality has tofollow.
They emerge naturally from thephase reduction of coherence
layers as the universe cascadesthrough dimensional thresholds.

Speaker 1 (36:25):
Phase reduction, losing symmetry.

Speaker 2 (36:27):
Yes, as coherence bifurcates and stabilizes,
symmetries are broken and thesespecific patterns emerge.
They aren't arbitrary, abstractgroups.
They are resonant, stableattractors.

Speaker 1 (36:37):
Attractors, like stable states.
The system settles into.

Speaker 2 (36:40):
Precisely.
They are defined by coherence,harmonic stability.
They represent the stable wayscoherence can structure itself
as it differentiates.
They are results of the dynamicdance between symmetry and
asymmetry within thatbifurcating coherence flow.

Speaker 1 (36:55):
Can you give us the sequence again how these
fundamental forces emerge inLillian's view?

Speaker 2 (37:00):
Certainly, the process starts from the infinite
coherence, the perfect symmetryof the primordial state layer I
.
First, as the initialbifurcations occur, the force of
electromagnetism emerges.
This corresponds to U1 symmetryand arises from coherence,
phase freedom, a kind of globalharmonic symmetry allowing
electric and magnetic fields.

Speaker 1 (37:19):
Okay, U1 first.

Speaker 2 (37:20):
Then further symmetry breaking leads to the weak
nuclear force.
This relates to SU2 symmetryand emerges from internal
coherence rotation, a kind ofchiral bifurcation affecting
particle spin, su2.
And then the strong nuclearforce appears associated with
SU3 symmetry.
This happens when resonancenodes form stable triplet
coherence structures, the kindneeded to bind quarks together

(37:41):
inside protons and neutrons.

Speaker 1 (37:43):
SU3 binds quarks Got it.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
And, crucially, each of these gauge symmetries is
seen as a symmetry not ofspace-time itself, as usually
conceived, but of coherent phasememory between the different
dimensional strata.
It's about how coherencepatterns relate across layers.
Wow.
So when that coherencereduction operator acts, when
observation or interactionhappens, it systematically

(38:06):
lowers the available phasefreedom, increases the
specificity of the fieldconfigurations.
It systematically lowers theavailable phase freedom,
increases the specificity of thefield configurations and leads
to the appearance of thesedistinct gauge fields and the
quantization of energy locally.

Speaker 1 (38:17):
So familiar concepts get redefined too, like charge.

Speaker 2 (38:20):
Yes, in this model, what we call electric charge
becomes a form of coherencememory stored in a particle
structure.
Field strength becomes aresonance gradient in the
coherence field.
Coupling constants whichdetermine force strength become
phase constraints on coherenceinteractions and gauge bosons.
The particles thought tomediate forces, like photons,
are reinterpreted as resonancemediators facilitating coherent

(38:42):
phase transfer, not fundamentalforce carriers in the old sense.

Speaker 1 (38:46):
This sounds like a completely different way of
thinking about fields themselves.
We usually visualize fields, asyou know, something spread out
in space, like iron filings,mapping magnetic fields.

Speaker 2 (38:56):
It is indeed a very different perspective.
Conventional spacetime fieldsare essentially replaced here
with coherent structured fieldmanifolds.

Speaker 1 (39:04):
Coherent, structured field manifolds.
What's the difference?

Speaker 2 (39:08):
A field.
Manifold in this context isn'tprimarily a geometric surface
you can plot points on in spacetime.
It's defined as a coherencedomain.

Speaker 1 (39:16):
A region of coherence .

Speaker 2 (39:18):
Yes, a region where a specific resonance structure, a
specific coherence pattern, isstabilized.
It exists precisely where thebackground coherence field meets
a specific threshold ofstability, allowing its ripples
to become stable, observablepatterns, like a field.

Speaker 1 (39:34):
And then there's the coherence tensor.
That sounds pretty central tomaking this happen.

Speaker 2 (39:38):
The coherence tensor, often written mathematically as
MathBBC, is absolutely central.
It's described as the generatorof all resonance structure in
the cosmos.

Speaker 1 (39:47):
The generator of structure.

Speaker 2 (39:48):
It's somewhat analogous to the curvature
tensor in Einstein's generalrelativity but, crucially, it
emerges from coherencedifferentials, changes in
coherence, density and phase,not directly from space-time
geometry metrics.

Speaker 1 (40:02):
So it describes the shape of coherence.

Speaker 2 (40:04):
In a way, yes, it governs the fundamental dynamics
.
In a way, yes, it governs thefundamental dynamics how phase
flows, how fields twist and turn, field torsion, how resonances
interfere and, importantly, theconditions for a field's
stability.
A specific field, like anelectromagnetic field, only
appears, only manifests, if themagnitude or intensity of this
coherence tensor exceeds aminimum resonance curvature

(40:27):
threshold in that region.

Speaker 1 (40:28):
So there's a minimum coherence needed for something
to exist.

Speaker 2 (40:35):
Exactly, and this condition replaces traditional
ideas like energy conditions andgeneral relativity or the Higgs
mechanism for symmetry,breaking in particle physics
Instead, emergence here isfundamentally resonant.
It happens when coherencereaches a critical stability
point, not purely because ofenergy minimization.
And interactions, particlesbumping into each other
interactions between fields orparticles are understood as
coherence overlap effects.
It means their resonancemanifolds interact because their

(40:58):
coherence flows arenon-orthogonal.
They interfere constructivelyor destructively.
It's not primarily aboutexchanging discrete force
particles so fields areresonance patterns yesometry and
matter are intricatemodulations of coherence
curvature.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
And the coherence tensor ties it all together.

Speaker 2 (41:15):
That's the claim.
It has the potential to unifygravitational fields, gauge
fields, the forces and maybeeven cognitive fields under one
overarching emergent regime, alldriven by coherence dynamics.

Speaker 1 (41:28):
OK, let's talk about gravity, then the force that
shapes galaxies, makes applesfall.
It's arguably the most familiaryet maybe most mysterious
fundamental force.
How does it fit into thiscoherence model?

Speaker 2 (41:40):
Well, in this view, gravity isn't quite a
fundamental force in the samecategory as, say,
electromagnetism istraditionally conceived.

Speaker 1 (41:47):
Not fundamental.

Speaker 2 (41:48):
Not in the sense of being mediated by a separate
force, particle.
Instead, gravity is seen as anemergent coherent structuring
effect.
It arises directly from thephase curvature of the
underlying coherence field.

Speaker 1 (42:00):
Phase curvature.
So the shape of coherence again.

Speaker 2 (42:02):
Exactly what we perceive as gravitational
effects.
The bending of space-time, theattraction between masses are
interpreted as the curvature ofthis coherence tensor, but
projected onto our observabledimensional manifold, layer 3.

Speaker 1 (42:17):
So gravity is a shadow of coherence curvature.

Speaker 2 (42:20):
That's a good way to put it.
This projected curvaturegoverns what appears to us as
geodesic motion, the straightestpaths objects take in what
looks like curved spacetime.
It also explains phenomena likecoherence lensing, why light
appears to bend around massiveobjects, and the very concept of
mass itself as being aconcentration or not of this
coherence curvature.

Speaker 1 (42:40):
And what about this hypergravity term?
That sounds even morefundamental, maybe.

Speaker 2 (42:43):
Hypergravity, which Lillian sometimes denotes as
math call, is defined as thecoherence invariant that exists
prior to any dimensionalreduction.

Speaker 1 (42:51):
Before spacetime emerges.

Speaker 2 (42:53):
Yes.
Imagine it as the undeformedprimordial phase curvature
existing in the deeper coherencefield, layer 2, from which
gravity, all other fields andeven matter itself emerge as
specific reductions ordifferentiations when projected
into layer 3.
Itself emerge as specificreductions or differentiations
when projected into layer 3.
It operates prior to spacetimewithin the field coherence
resonance dynamics and acts asthe underlying stabilizing

(43:15):
attractor behind all fieldemergence.

Speaker 1 (43:18):
So it's like the deeper universal coherence,
glenarm, that guides howgravitational phenomena manifest
in our dimensions.

Speaker 2 (43:23):
Precisely Like the underlying rhythm that gives
rise to the observable dance ofgravity.

Speaker 1 (43:28):
So mass it isn't just an inherent property of stuff
Like this object has this muchmass intrinsically no not
intrinsically.

Speaker 2 (43:36):
in that sense, lillian argues, mass arises
purely from the localstabilization of coherence.
It's a resonance integral.

Speaker 1 (43:42):
A measure of stable coherence intensity.

Speaker 2 (43:44):
Exactly.
Particles in this framework aredescribed not as points but as
phase knots in the coherencemanifold localized, stable
concentrations of coherence.

Speaker 1 (43:52):
And black holes, not singularities.

Speaker 2 (43:55):
Intriguingly, black holes are reinterpreted as
coherence collapses, not asspacetime singularities in the
traditional mathematical sense,but as regions where the
coherence structure hascompletely broken down, where
phase continuity is lost.

Speaker 1 (44:10):
And the pull of gravity.

Speaker 2 (44:11):
The gravitational pull we experience is understood
as a result of coherence flowdrift.
Things tend to move towardsregions of higher coherence,
stability or density.
This implies that accelerationis essentially a phase drift and
free fall is simply phasefollowing, moving along the path
of greatest coherence, thegeodesic in the coherence field.

Speaker 1 (44:31):
And the implications of this view of gravity.

Speaker 2 (44:33):
Well, it's significant.
It suggests, for one, that noseparate graviton particle is
needed to mediate gravity.
Gravity is an effect of thecoherence field itself, and it
implies that Einstein'sequivalence principle the
profound idea that gravity andacceleration are locally
indistinguishable isfundamentally a phase alignment
condition within the coherencefield.
It arises naturally from thestructure of coherence.

Speaker 1 (44:55):
We talked about the observer earlier in the general
theory of emergence, how it actsas a coherence reducing agent.
How does that specific conceptapply on the grand cosmological
scale?
Is the universe itselfobserving itself in a way?

Speaker 2 (45:09):
Yes, the observer function is presented as truly
universal.
It operates through coherence,modulation and resonance
reduction at all scales.
Crucially, it's not somethingexternal to the cosmos like a
detached scientist lookingthrough a telescope from outside
.

Speaker 1 (45:24):
Right, it's embedded within.

Speaker 2 (45:25):
Exactly.
The cosmos isn't just passivelyobserved from the outside,
Lillian argues.
It actively selects its ownstructure through these observer
phase functions that areembedded within its own field
dynamics.
The observer's fundamental role, even at this cosmic level,
remains the same To reduce thevast coherence potential into
specific field manifestations,making them real, stable and

(45:47):
part of the evolving cosmicstructure.

Speaker 1 (45:49):
So every interaction, from the tiniest quantum event
way back near the beginning tothe formation of the largest
galactic clusters today, is aform of observation that shapes
reality, that feels profound.

Speaker 2 (46:01):
That's precisely the implication.
Quantum interactions,gravitational collapses leading
to stars and black holes, evenbioelectric decision-making
within organisms on planets likeours, and the large-scale
cosmological field bifurcationsAll of these are considered part
of a vast distributed observermanifold.

Speaker 1 (46:20):
A network of observation.

Speaker 2 (46:21):
Yes, this manifold collectively modulates reality
through continuous fieldselection, continuously
collapsing potential intoactuality.
Lillian goes so far as todefine a formal cosmological
selection function.
This function is described as aphase coherence inner product,
a kind of mathematical measureof alignment between the local
observer field and the latentcoherence field potential.

(46:44):
What this means is that realityfundamentally emerges where and
when local observer fieldsalign resonantly with those
latent coherence structures.
It's a resonance-drivenselection.

Speaker 1 (46:54):
So observation doesn't just reveal reality, it
actively helps to create orselect it, even on a cosmic
scale.
My mind is definitely reelingwith the implications of that.

Speaker 2 (47:03):
That's the powerful and perhaps unsettling for some
implication.
An observer, whether a particleinteraction or a conscious
being, doesn't merely see theuniverse in a passive sense.
It actively folds the universeinto coherence at a given scale,
through what he calls adimensional embedding operation.

Speaker 1 (47:22):
Folding it into coherence.

Speaker 2 (47:23):
Each observer projects a kind of subjective
phase manifold into reality bycollapsing potentiality into
definite form through itsinteraction.
And, importantly, this observerfield also obeys feedback
dynamics.
Observation tends to increase.
Where coherence is alreadydense Structure begets more
observation.
Observation actively influencesincrease.
Where coherence is alreadydense Structure begets more
observation.
Observation actively influencesthe future unfolding of form

(47:44):
and phenomena like quantumentanglement are interpreted as
a shared observer field.
Condition A deep non-localcoherence established between
two systems through a sharedobservation event.

Speaker 1 (47:55):
So the universe observing itself.

Speaker 2 (47:56):
That's the startling conclusion the universe observes
itself into being.
Reality is intrinsicallyself-selected and measurement or
observation isn't just a toolscientists use, it's a universal
ontological principle inherentto existence itself.
And remember the dualityConsciousness enhances or
restores coherence, whileobservation reduces or collapses

(48:20):
it.
They are constantly sculptingreality together.

Speaker 1 (48:22):
Okay, let's talk structure, From the smallest
particles holding together tothe largest clusters of galaxies
forming that incredible cosmicweb structure we see.
The universe is clearly full ofcomplex organization.
How does this model explainthat it doesn't seem random at
all in this view?

Speaker 2 (48:37):
You're absolutely right.
It's explicitly not random.
In hyperfractal cosmology, allstructure at every single scale,
arises from gradients andcoherence.
Differences in coherence,density or phase.

Speaker 1 (48:47):
Gradients like hills and valleys in the coherence
field.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
Exactly, and these gradients then spontaneously
self-organize through processescalled resonance phase locking
and field embedding.
Right A structure, anystructure forms when the local
coherence gradient, thesteepness of the coherence
landscape, exceeds a certaincritical resonance stabilization
threshold.

Speaker 1 (49:08):
A tipping point for stability.

Speaker 2 (49:09):
Yes particles within an atom.
To the bonding topology thatshapes molecules.
To the nuclear fusion processesinside stars.
To the vast filament and voidpatterns of galaxies making up
the cosmic web.

Speaker 1 (49:26):
And even.

Speaker 2 (49:27):
And even Lillian suggests to the neural field
architecture underlyingcognitive processes within our
own brains.
It's the same principle,operating at vastly different
scales.

Speaker 1 (49:36):
So this incredible order we see isn't some fluke or
just a statistical anomalyemerging from initial randomness
.
It's inherent in the coherencedynamics.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
Not a fluke at all.
It occurs, he argues, throughharmonic overlap and resonance
tiling.

Speaker 1 (49:50):
Resonance tiling with fitting mosaic pieces together.

Speaker 2 (49:53):
Exactly.
It's a process where coherencefields interlock via precise
phase matching like an intricate, self-assembling cosmic mosaic.
This naturally results in thefractal-like nested geometries
we observe everywhere in nature.
It leads to scalar hierarchicalstructures where similar
patterns repeat at differentsize scales, and it creates

(50:13):
pervasive phase-resonantfeedback loops that maintain the
structures.

Speaker 1 (50:18):
And this explains why , for instance, the cosmic web
structure looks weirdly similarto neural networks.

Speaker 2 (50:23):
That's the claim.
This framework provides areason.
Both are fundamentallycoherence tessellations.
They are patterns formed by theprecise interlocking of
coherence fields according tothe same underlying principles.

Speaker 1 (50:36):
And this leads to something specific called a
hyperfractal scaling law.

Speaker 2 (50:39):
Yes, this law essentially states that
structure emerges recursivelyalong defined scaling tiers.
New levels of organizationappear, but they often exhibit
repeated harmonic ratios orrelationships across these
cosmological scales.

Speaker 1 (50:52):
So we see similar patterns again and again.

Speaker 2 (50:54):
Exactly.
It leads to the observation ofself-similar phase groupings.
Think about the way atoms formmolecules, cells form tissues,
stars form galaxies, galaxiesform clusters.
All exhibit recurring patternsof organization, stability and
interaction.
Ontological fractality,therefore, isn't just a nice
description.
It becomes a causal law drivingstructure formation.

Speaker 1 (51:18):
And the persistence of these forms.
Why do atoms stay stable?
Why do biological structureshold together?

Speaker 2 (51:23):
That comes from what Lillian calls coherence memory.

Speaker 1 (51:26):
Coherence memory the field remembers its patterns.

Speaker 2 (51:30):
Yes, it's the field's intrinsic capacity to retain
its phase-structured state overtime, to hold on to its resonant
patterns.
Conversely, disruption of thiscoherence, memory, losing the
pattern, leads to phase decay,which manifests as entropy or
disorder.
It leads to field fragmentation, resulting in breakdown of
structure and potentially evendimensional decoherence, the

(51:50):
loss of stable geometricstructure.

Speaker 1 (51:52):
So stability is remembered.
Coherence.

Speaker 2 (51:54):
Precisely.
This means that form, any form,is a local resolution of global
coherence gradients.
Structure is fundamentally aresonance effect and
self-organization is a direct,inevitable consequence of phase
locking within the coherencefield.
And in this view, there's nofundamental ontological

(52:14):
difference between the stabilityof an atom and the large-scale
arrangement of a galaxy.
They are both just differentscale manifestations of the same
underlying fractalized phasecoherence conditions.

Speaker 1 (52:24):
Okay, we have covered a lot of ground today diving
deep into these two trulyprofound interconnected papers.

Speaker 2 (52:31):
They definitely give you a lot to think about.

Speaker 1 (52:33):
Can you just quickly clarify for us again how exactly
emergence as ontology which youmentioned Lillian sometimes
calls big emergence and hyperfractal cosmology relate to each
other and how they differ?
Just quick summary.

Speaker 2 (52:45):
Certainly, they are absolutely deeply interconnected
.
You really need both to get thefull picture.
They form a unified theoreticalframework, almost like two
sides of the same coin.

Speaker 1 (52:52):
OK, the overlaps first.

Speaker 2 (52:54):
In terms of their overlaps.
Both papers share that coreconcept.
Their overlaps both papersshare that core concept the
universe as a recursivelylayered, self-structuring field.
Reality emerging from coherencegradients across a hyperfractal
structure.
Both see the dimensional basisof reality space, time forces as
stemming from the recursivebifurcation of phase space,
generating layers that lead tofields, particles, geometry and

(53:16):
consciousness.
Their fundamental ontology isrooted in coherence fields,
instantiating reality with beingitself arising as structured
resonance through theseprocesses of coherence,
reduction and recursion.
That's the shared foundation.

Speaker 1 (53:30):
So big emergence is like the grand universal theory
of how anything comes into beingfrom coherence.

Speaker 2 (53:35):
Yes, the general mechanics of emergence.

Speaker 1 (53:37):
And hyperfactile cosmology is its specific cosmic
application detailing how theuniverse we live in fits into
that grander scheme.

Speaker 2 (53:44):
Exactly that leads perfectly into their differences
.
Hyperfractal cosmology thesecond paper specifically
emphasizes the cosmic scaledetails Recursive geometry,
phased apology on universalscales.
It focuses on explainingcosmological constants deriving
field equations relevant to theuniverse's large-scale structure
and detailing that specificcascade of symmetry groups U1,

(54:07):
su2, su3, often visualized withnested manifolds or layers.
It's about how this reality,our cosmos, arises layer by
layer, via hyperfractalcoherence.
Reduction.

Speaker 1 (54:17):
And big emergence.

Speaker 2 (54:18):
Big emergence, or emergence as ontology, is the
more general foundationalframework.
It emphasizes the universalprocess of emergence itself.
Crucially, it includes domainsthat aren't strictly cosmic,
like thought, biology, symbolicsystems how do ideas emerge?
How does life emerge?
It focuses more on the abstractconcepts like ontological
closure or the lack thereof,infinite becoming and those

(54:40):
meta-ontological structures likethe observer function and the
consciousness field, oftenvisualized with recursive phase
trees or branching diagrams.

Speaker 1 (54:48):
So one is the general engine, the other is a specific
car.
It powers.

Speaker 2 (54:51):
That's a decent analogy.
Big emergence is the generaltheory of how anything emerges
from coherence, and hyperfactilecosmology is its specific,
detailed application to theuniverse itself, providing the
architecture of cosmic emergencebased on those principles.

Speaker 1 (55:07):
Now the papers, as you've hinted, mention formal
equations throughout.
Obviously, this isn't a mathlecture and that can sound
intimidating.

Speaker 2 (55:13):
Right, we don't need the Greek letters flying around.

Speaker 1 (55:16):
But what do these equations signify for the theory
as a whole?
What's their importance?

Speaker 2 (55:20):
They signify the intended rigor and potential
completeness of Lillian's theory.
These aren't just, you know,vague philosophical ideas.
They are intended to beformalized mathematically, to be
testable, at least in principle.
Lillian's equations aim todefine and quantify these
coherence dynamics as theprimary ontological quantity.
They attempt to generalizetraditional field theory into a

(55:43):
comprehensive, recursive,coherence-based tensor formalism
.

Speaker 1 (55:47):
So they provide the mathematical machinery.

Speaker 2 (55:49):
Exactly.
They include specific equationsintended to describe the
coherence field equation ofmotion.
This is the core equationaiming to generalize how
curvature, gravity and forcefields arise as expressions of
coherence, flow and density okay, the master equation for
coherent then the phasereduction operator equation.
This formally encodes thatcascade we talked about from

(56:11):
unified coherence down to thestructured symmetry layers for
all the fundamental forces u1,su2, su3 how the symmetries
break mathematically.

Speaker 1 (56:20):
How forces emerge.

Speaker 2 (56:21):
There's an equation for mass from coherence
concentration, defining mass notas an intrinsic property but
formally as an integral ofcoherence intensity over a
region.

Speaker 1 (56:31):
Mass as focused coherence.

Speaker 2 (56:34):
Crucially the gravitational tensor from
coherence equation.
This aims to show how thegravitational field emerges from
the coherence tensor, andsignificantly.
It's designed to reducemathematically to Einstein's
field equations in the classicallimit, showing consistency with
established physics.
But it also generalizes toinclude non-local hypergravity
couplings, suggesting it goesdeeper.

Speaker 1 (56:54):
Connecting to Einstein but going beyond.

Speaker 2 (56:57):
Yes.
Then there's the observercoherence divergence.
This defines that criticalfeedback loop mathematically how
coherence induces observationand how observation collapses.
Coherence shaping realitymoment by moment.

Speaker 1 (57:12):
The observer loop formalized.

Speaker 2 (57:13):
The selection function inner product.
This equation determines whereand when coherence collapse
actually produces stable form.
It encodes the probability ofemergence based on the resonant
alignment between coherencepotential and observer fields.

Speaker 1 (57:27):
How reality gets selected.

Speaker 2 (57:29):
And finally, the hyperfractal scaling law.
This equation is designed toprecisely produce that nested,
recursive emergence across allscales, generating the fractal
structure from the quantum tothe cosmological.

Speaker 1 (57:41):
The fractal pattern generator.

Speaker 2 (57:42):
Exactly so.
These equations taken togetherare intended to be the
analytical engine of the theory.
They aim to show quantitativelyhow phenomena we usually think
of as separate gravity, quantumfields, cosmology, maybe even
cognition could potentially beunified under the single
overarching framework of arecursive ontological tensor
field.
Driven by coherence, it'spresented as a truly grand

(58:04):
unification attempt.

Speaker 1 (58:05):
Wow, what an absolutely incredible deep dive
into Lillian's vision of reality.
That was a lot to take in.

Speaker 2 (58:12):
It really is a fundamentally different way of
looking at things.

Speaker 1 (58:15):
We've moved from the very definition of existence,
its fundamental layers built oncoherence, to how consciousness
plays this central, active rolenot just watching, but
participating.
Modulating coherence and thenapplied all of that to the grand
architecture and evolution ofthe entire cosmos, understanding
it not as random, but as thisdeeply structured,
self-organizing coherence system.

(58:36):
My head is definitely stillspinning, but in the best
possible way.

Speaker 2 (58:40):
It truly pushes the boundaries, doesn't it?
How we conceive of physics,metaphysics, unifying them into
potentially a single elegantframework of coherence and
recursion.
It really redefines what wemight mean by existence and
maybe, more importantly, our ownplace within it.

Speaker 1 (58:55):
Absolutely.
This whole deep dive leaves mewith a powerful thought, a quote
straight from Loewy and himselfthat seems to capture it To
exist is to resonate, to know isto cohere, to become is to
unfold the recursive real.
That sums it up nicely as someseparate, isolated entity, but

(59:22):
perhaps as a coherence, stable,recursive structure.

Speaker 2 (59:26):
Part of the pattern.

Speaker 1 (59:27):
That is intrinsically part of the universe observing
and creating itself.

Speaker 2 (59:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (59:31):
How does that change your view of your place in the
cosmos?

Speaker 2 (59:34):
Yeah, what shifts when you see yourself as
resonance?

Speaker 1 (59:37):
But definitely something to ponder Until our
next deep dive.