What Readiness Predicts: Novel Insights, Experiments, and Theoretical Consequences

Having reframed both quantum and relativistic phenomena in terms of readiness, we can ask a natural question:

What does a readiness-based perspective allow us to predict, theorise, or experimentally probe that was previously obscured by representational metaphysics?

This post sketches the landscape.

---

1. Predicting Event Structure from Readiness

In the categorical architecture:

• Inclination (internal morphism pressure) + Ability (external coherence constraints) = Readiness functor

• Actualisation (cuts) = event

Prediction principle:

Given a complete readiness profile, the set of admissible morphisms — and therefore the set of potential events — can be deduced without appeal to hidden variables or spacetime coordinates.

Practical implication:

• In controlled quantum experiments, readiness mapping can identify which measurement outcomes are structurally possible before a cut occurs.

• This shifts predictive focus from probabilities (as metaphysical weights) to structure-preserving constraints.

---

2. Coherence Constraints and Relational Correlations

Readiness predicts correlations:

• Entanglement = shared readiness structure

• Relativistic coherence = constraints on admissible cuts across locales

Experimental insight:

• Manipulating readiness in one locale predicts which morphisms are admissible in a neighbouring locale.

• This is fully local in relational terms, yet reproduces non-classical correlations observed in entangled systems.

---

3. Novel Consequences for Physics

• Curvature and superposition unify: Readiness shows that “quantum weirdness” and “spacetime curvature” are dual faces of functorial coherence.

• Event hierarchy emerges naturally: Micro-actualisations (quantum) and macro-actualisations (relativistic) are different projections of the same fibred category.

• Potential-based dynamics: Rather than evolving a state in time, physics becomes the study of constraints on morphism selection across readiness fields.

---

4. Potential Experiments

While this is a conceptual architecture, it suggests experimental reframings:

1. Quantum readiness mapping: Identify families of admissible micro-morphisms (rather than measuring probability amplitudes).

2. Fibre-transport experiments: Track how constraints propagate across relationally defined locales (relativistic readiness).

3. Cross-scale coherence tests: Measure the impact of macro-level coherence variation on micro-level admissible cuts.

4. Construal intervention: Alter relational conditions to see predicted shifts in admissible actualisations.

All are designed to probe structure rather than measurement statistics, consistent with relational ontology.

---

5. Theoretical Consequences

• Unification principle: Quantum mechanics, relativity, and semiotic construal are all expressions of readiness.

• Predictive focus: From probabilistic forecasts to structural possibility forecasts.

• Conceptual clarity: Removes metaphysical baggage—no hidden states, no collapsing waves, no spacetime substrate—just structured potential and perspectival cuts.

• Semantic resonance: Readiness links directly to meaning: events are cuts, but cuts are also instances of construal in symbolic systems.

---

Conclusion

Readiness reframes prediction:

It is not what will happen, but what is structurally admissible to happen under relational constraints.

It turns quantum mechanics, relativity, and meaning-making into a single science of possibility, grounded in categorical structure, relational ontology, and the logic of readiness.