A Common State Space for Communication: Cross Domain Evidence, Boundaries, and a Prospective Test
- 1Kronaxis
Abstract
Several established literatures, working separately and with unrelated methods, each describe a piece of what may be one structure. The Distinct Fields programme measures one thing, the character a text projects, on one low dimensional geometry, and reproduces findings from several fields through measured reductions on shared data. This paper asks whether those separate results are projections of a common communication state structure. It defines a candidate state object, assembles evidence recovered independently across datasets, instruments, generators, languages, eras and measurement methods, and presses an instrument independence attack in which behavioural logs, randomised experiments, historical human text and non neural lexical measurement reproduce compatible structure with no language model in the measurement loop. It states, as prominently as the support, what does not unify: person specific persuasion is weak and bounded, coarse context personalisation fails, the order of interventions adds little at observed granularity, and the human transition law has never been observed. It proposes an emerging ontology, communication occupies the state space while persons and context adjust the transition, defines candidate dynamics with the human transition operator marked unobserved, and ends on an explicit prospective experiment, REACH, built to falsify the strongest form of the theory with its rival theories and failure conditions declared in advance. It states a candidate, not a verdict.
Related
- Common Randomness: A Key Enabler of Trustworthy 6G Communication Systems
- Evolutionary and Functional Conservation of Topologically Associating Domain Boundaries in Rice Genomes
- Crossing classroom boundaries: school-based music participation and cross-domain learning development in adolescence.
- Corosolic Acid in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Molecular Properties, Evidence Boundaries, and Development Priorities
- A Common Measure of Communication for Speech Brain-Computer Interfaces
BibTeX
@misc{duke2026common,
title = {{A Common State Space for Communication: Cross Domain Evidence, Boundaries, and a Prospective Test}},
author = {Jason Duke},
howpublished = {Zenodo},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.23588721},
url = {https://zenodo.org/records/23588721},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - A Common State Space for Communication: Cross Domain Evidence, Boundaries, and a Prospective Test
AU - Jason Duke
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/23
PB - Zenodo
DO - 10.5281/zenodo.23588721
UR - https://zenodo.org/records/23588721
AB - Several established literatures, working separately and with unrelated methods, each describe a piece of what may be one structure. The Distinct Fields programme measures one thing, the character a text projects, on one low dimensional geometry, and reproduces findings from several fields through measured reductions on shared data. This paper asks whether those separate results are projections of a common communication state structure. It defines a candidate state object, assembles evidence recovered independently across datasets, instruments, generators, languages, eras and measurement methods, and presses an instrument independence attack in which behavioural logs, randomised experiments, historical human text and non neural lexical measurement reproduce compatible structure with no language model in the measurement loop. It states, as prominently as the support, what does not unify: person specific persuasion is weak and bounded, coarse context personalisation fails, the order of interventions adds little at observed granularity, and the human transition law has never been observed. It proposes an emerging ontology, communication occupies the state space while persons and context adjust the transition, defines candidate dynamics with the human transition operator marked unobserved, and ends on an explicit prospective experiment, REACH, built to falsify the strongest form of the theory with its rival theories and failure conditions declared in advance. It states a candidate, not a verdict.
ER -