Resonances: Structured Potential Across Domains: 1 — Why Explanations Rhyme

1. After the Breakthrough

In the previous series, individuation was reframed as condensation within structured potential. Stability emerged not from substance, but from repeated actualisation producing inclination, graded density, and relative autonomy.

Having articulated this framework, an unexpected phenomenon appears.

Explanations in very different scientific domains begin to look structurally similar.

Neural selection.

Cosmic filament formation.

Quantum field excitation.

Each seems to describe stability emerging from patterned recurrence within a field-like organisation.

The question is not whether these domains confirm the ontology.

They do not.

The question is why the explanatory shapes rhyme.

---

2. Explanatory Morphology

Across domains, we often encounter a recurring pattern:

1. A structured field of possibilities.

2. Local fluctuations or selections.

3. Amplification through recurrence.

4. Emergent density or stability.

5. Relative autonomy without absolute separation.

This morphology appears in neuroscience, cosmology, and quantum field theory — though each domain interprets it within its own ontological commitments.

The resemblance does not imply identity.

It suggests that certain forms of explanation are especially powerful wherever stability must be accounted for without invoking static substance.

---

3. Resonance Without Reduction

It is crucial to distinguish resonance from reduction.

To note structural similarity is not to claim:

• That physics reduces to semiotics.

• That neuroscience validates ontology.

• That a single metaphysical substrate underlies all domains.

Each scientific field operates with domain-specific assumptions — often including a commitment to mind-independent physical substrate.

The ontology of structured potential does not share that commitment. It treats phenomenon as first-order meaning and instantiation as perspectival actualisation.

Thus, the relationship between domains is analogical, not foundational.

We are identifying a shared explanatory form, not asserting ontological unity.

---

4. Why This Matters

If explanations rhyme across domains, it suggests something about how we understand stability itself.

Perhaps substance is not the only — or even the primary — explanatory resource available.

Perhaps patterned recurrence within structured openness is a more general explanatory morphology.

The next posts will examine three domains where this morphology appears with particular clarity:

• Neural group selection.

• Cosmological large-scale structure formation.

• Quantum field excitation.

In each case, we will explore both the resonance and the limit — what parallels the ontology of structured potential, and where the domain’s own commitments diverge.

The goal is not synthesis.

It is clarity.