Tier_2_Information_Dynamics

Tier 2: Information Dynamics (I2.x)

Type: 🏛️ Foundational
Scope: The Mechanics of State Transition
Dependencies: Tier 1

I2.1 — INFORMATION STATE TRANSITIONS ARE GOVERNED BY CONSTRAINTS (LAWS)

Type: 🟢 Primitive
Scope: Physics, Lawhood, Dynamics
Dependencies: O1.1, O1.2, O1.3
Refutation Targets: Humean collapse · Law eliminability · Pure contingency

CORE CLAIM STRONGEST OBJECTION DIRECT RESPONSE GROUNDS (SUPPORT) DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS
State transitions obey objective constraints (“laws”) “Laws are just descriptive summaries of regularities.” Pure regularity accounts cannot explain why deviations are impossible rather than merely absent. Conservation laws, symmetry constraints, and selection rules forbid transitions—not just describe them. Defeat A (Humean): Reproduce all physical constraints using only statistical regularities with no modal force.Defeat B: Show no transition is objectively impossible, only improbable.

I2.2 — ENTROPY IS THE MEASURE OF INFORMATIONAL DISPERSION

Type: 🟢 Primitive
Scope: Thermodynamics, Information Theory
Dependencies: O1.2, O1.3
Refutation Targets: Entropy equivocation · Anti-teleology · Local reversal

CORE CLAIM STRONGEST OBJECTION DIRECT RESPONSE GROUNDS (SUPPORT) DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS
Entropy quantifies the dispersion of informational distinctions “Entropy is purely thermodynamic, not informational.” Thermodynamic entropy and informational entropy share identical formal structure and operational meaning. Boltzmann = Shannon; Landauer principle links information loss to heat dissipation. Defeat A: Show entropy equivalence is formal coincidence with no physical implication.Defeat B: Identify a system where entropy increases without information loss.

I2.3 — COHERENCE IS INFORMATIONAL ORDER RESISTANT TO ENTROPY

Type: 🔵 Schema
Scope: Systems, Stability, Emergence
Dependencies: I2.1, I2.2
Refutation Targets: Redundancy collapse · Illusory order · Epiphenomenality

CORE CLAIM STRONGEST OBJECTION DIRECT RESPONSE GROUNDS (SUPPORT) DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS
Coherence is structured information that resists dispersion “Coherence is just low entropy.” Low entropy is a state; coherence is an organization that actively maintains constraint under noise. Lasers, biological systems, error-correcting codes. Defeat A: Reduce coherence fully to static low-entropy states.Defeat B: Show coherent systems do not resist perturbation.

I2.5 — PROBABILITY STATUS IN REALITY (QM INTERPRETATION SENSITIVE)

Type: ⚠️ Stance (with 🟢 minimal core sub-claim)
Scope: Quantum foundations, modality, ontology
Dependencies: O1.4, I2.1
Refutation Targets: Category error · Underdetermination · Empirical mismatch

CORE CLAIM STRONGEST OBJECTION DIRECT RESPONSE GROUNDS (SUPPORT) DEEPEST — REFUTATION TARGETS
I2.5a (🟢 Minimal Core): QM requires a probabilistic formalism for outcome statistics. “That’s just a calculational tool.” The formalism is mandatory; the ontology is not. QM uses amplitudes/probabilities to match observed statistics. Defeat: Provide a successful replacement theory that reproduces QM statistics without probabilistic structure.

Section Navigation & Dependencies

You are here: §2.2 — Tier 2: Information Dynamics

Purpose of this section:
Establishes how informational states evolve, stabilize, or disperse via laws, entropy, and coherence.

⟶ Forward Progression

Next: §3 — Tier 3: Physical Emergence

⟵ Structural Dependencies

This section depends on the following prior commitments:

⛨ Defense & Scope Control

Primary objections addressed:
→ §9.4 — Falsifying Information Dynamics

What this section does not claim:

  • That entropy can be locally reversed without cost
  • That probability is necessarily ontically random (it admits multiple interpretations)

Epistemic Status

Claim type: Foundational / Interpretive
Testability standard: Logical coherence / Consistency with Thermodynamics

Reading Guidance
This section provides the "engine" of reality. It defines why things stay together (coherence) and why they fall apart (entropy).