🛡️ The Structural Constraints of Similarity Theory

A Foundational Page of Similarity Theory
By Simon Raphael

Similarity Theory is not an accommodating theology. It does not claim that “everything can be explained.” It does not expand elastically to absorb any possible state of affairs. Instead, it stands on structural commitments — and those commitments impose constraints.

A framework that explains anything explains nothing. A framework grounded in structure must forbid. This page clarifies what Similarity Theory commits to, what it rejects, and what it does not permit.

🧱 1. Foundational Commitments (The Logos of the Framework)

Similarity Theory stands upon defined architectural pillars:

1. Consciousness as Ontological Life — active, informational, knowledge-bearing.

2. Frames of Time — preserved relational states generated through change.

3. Dimensional Rule-Sets — layered structures of increasing relational complexity.

4. Non-Erasure of Informational States — structure is transformed or preserved, not annihilated.

5. Relational Ontology — existence entails differentiation and relation.

These are not metaphors. They are structural claims about reality. If reality contradicts these commitments, the framework must be revised.

🚫 2. What Similarity Theory Explicitly Forbids

A disciplined metaphysical system must exclude certain possibilities. Similarity Theory forbids the following:

❌ Absolute Annihilation of Information

Similarity Theory rejects the possibility that information can be destroyed without trace — without transformation, encoding, persistence, or structural residue anywhere in reality. If it were demonstrated that informational states can be ontologically erased — not transformed, not hidden, not redistributed, but truly deleted — the Non-Erasure Principle would collapse.

Current debates in theoretical physics, including the black hole information paradox¹, increasingly favour conservation rather than annihilation. But if absolute deletion were proven, revision would be required.

❌ Fundamentally Non-Relational Existence

Similarity Theory rejects the possibility of something existing without differentiation, without structure, without relational distinction.

Existence implies difference. Difference implies relation. Relation implies structure.

A reality devoid of relation would be indistinguishable from non-existence within this framework.

❌ Total Reducibility of Consciousness

Similarity Theory rejects the claim that subjective interiority can be exhaustively reduced to mechanical or physical processes with no irreducible informational aspect.

If consciousness were demonstrated to be fully explainable as a by-product of physical systems — with no ontological depth beyond material interaction — then consciousness would no longer be foundational.

❌ Ontological Randomness Without Pattern

Similarity Theory rejects the idea that reality is fundamentally chaotic without patterned recurrence across scales.

The principle of similarity asserts that structure echoes across layers — from atomic bonding to biological organisation to cognitive architecture². If reality were shown to contain no cross-scale structural recurrence — no pattern continuity — then similarity would not be generative.

🔁 3. Recursive Architecture Is Not Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning asserts:

A is true because A.

Recursive architecture asserts:

Structured relations generate further structured relations.

Similarity Theory is recursive, not circular. Its principles are not defined as “whatever explains reality.” They are independently observable as patterned recurrence across domains. If similarity were merely defined as “that which produces structure,” the theory would collapse into tautology.

Instead, similarity is identified as cross-scale structural echo — an observable property of reality.

🌌 4. Black Holes and the Question of Preservation

Black holes represent a boundary of current scientific understanding. At first glance, they appear to annihilate information. Yet modern theoretical physics increasingly suggests that information is preserved — encoded on event horizons or redistributed through quantum correlations³.

Similarity Theory does not claim detailed knowledge of black hole interiors. It asserts only this:

If information persists in any structured form — however transformed — the Non-Erasure Principle remains intact.

If absolute informational annihilation were conclusively demonstrated, revision would be necessary.

Mystery is not contradiction. Unknown is not negation.

📐 5. Constraint as Strength

The strength of Similarity Theory does not lie in its ability to accommodate everything. It lies in its willingness to forbid.

It forbids annihilation without trace.
It forbids non-relational being.
It rejects total randomness.
It challenges full reductionism.
It commits to structured persistence.

Constraint is not weakness. Constraint is architecture. Without constraint, a framework becomes theology.
With constraint, it becomes metaphysics under discipline.

🧭 6. Integrity of the Framework

Similarity Theory does not claim immunity from revision. It claims structural integrity under defined commitments. If those commitments are contradicted, the theory must evolve. Until then, it stands — not because it explains anything, but because it explains within boundaries.

That is not dogma. That is structure.

References:

1. Hawking, S. (2005). Information Loss in Black Holes. Physical Review D.

2. Laughlin, R. (2005). A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down.

3. Preskill, J. (Black Hole Information Paradox debates, 1990s–present).