Chapter 2: Constraints

2.5 Independence

We must pause to verify that our foundational rules are distinct pillars of the theory rather than redundant restatements of a single underlying principle to ensure the logical parsimony of our framework. It is necessary to prove that a system can enforce directed links without automatically compelling triangular geometry and that the existence of closed quanta does not presuppose the directionality of the arrows. We are searching for the logical orthogonality of our axioms to ensure that each one carves out a specific and unique aspect of the physical reality we are constructing. If our axioms were interdependent, we would risk building a theory on circular logic rather than fundamental principles.

A theory carrying excess conceptual baggage fails to identify the true atomic elements of the physics if the axioms are not logically orthogonal and indicates a failure to isolate the independent variables of the system. Relying on interdependent rules obscures the specific role each constraint plays in shaping reality and leaves a confused map of the dependencies between time and space and causality. A theory built on circular assumptions cannot stand because we must demonstrate that each rule brings something unique and necessary to the table to define the universe completely. We must be certain that we are not simply renaming the same constraint in different ways.

We achieve this by constructing explicit countermodels where one axiom holds firmly while the other is flagrantly breached to demonstrate the separability of these physical concepts. A directed square obeys causality yet lacks geometry while a reflexive triangle possesses area yet fails time-ordering which proves the concepts are distinct. These examples serve as logical proofs of independence that validate our choice of axioms as the irreducible basis for a directed geometry and confirm we have isolated the origins of time and space. This analysis confirms that we have successfully decomposed the universe into its prime constituent rules.

---

2.5.1 Theorem: Independence of Axioms 1 and 2

Establishment of Logical Orthogonality between Causal and Geometric Primitives via Mutual Non-Entailment

The Causal Primitive (§2.1.1) and the Geometric Primitive (§2.3.1) are formally independent constraints. The satisfaction of the conditions of Axiom 1 does not logically entail the satisfaction of Axiom 2, nor does the satisfaction of Axiom 2 entail Axiom 1. The validity of this independence is established by the existence of specific graph models that satisfy one axiom while violating the other.

2.5.1.1 Commentary: Independence Argument

Structure of the Mutual Non-Entailment Argument via Construction of Orthogonal Countermodels

The proof follows the standard model-theoretic approach, constructing explicit counter-models to demonstrate that neither axiom functions as a subset of the other. This methodology draws upon (Enderton, 2001), using the definition of independence where a sentence $\sigma$ is independent of a set of axioms $\Sigma$ if there exists a model $\mathfrak{M}_1$ where $\Sigma \cup \{\sigma\}$ holds and a model $\mathfrak{M}_2$ where $\Sigma \cup \{\neg \sigma\}$ holds. Here, our "sentences" are the axioms of Causal Directionality and Geometric Constructibility.

1.  The Granularity Failure (Model A): The argument constructs a sparse directed 4-cycle. This model satisfies Axiom 1 (no self-loops, no reciprocity) but violates Axiom 2. It demonstrates that causal directionality does not entail geometric quantization. 2.  The Causal Failure (Model B): The argument constructs a disjoint union of a 3-cycle and a self-loop. This model satisfies Axiom 2 (quanta exist) but violates Axiom 1. It demonstrates that geometric structure does not entail causal consistency. 3.  The Synthesis: The mutual non-entailment confirms the axioms as orthogonal foundations: one establishes the arrow of time, the other establishes the fabric of space.

2.5.1.2 Diagram: Independence Matrix

Logical Independence Matrix contrasting Axiom Satisfaction across Orthogonal Countermodels

      ------------------------------------------
      We demonstrate independence by constructing two universe models
      where one axiom fails while the other holds.

      | MODEL      | STRUCTURE                 | AXIOM 1      | AXIOM 2      |
      |            |                           | (Causal)     | (Geometric)  |
      |------------|---------------------------|--------------|--------------|
      | CASE A     | A 4-cycle with            | SATISFIED    | VIOLATED     |
      |            | no chords.                | (No loops,   | (Contains    |
      |            | (A->B->C->D->A)           |  Directed)   |  unreduced   |
      |            |                           |              |  L=4 cycle)  |
      |------------|---------------------------|--------------|--------------|
      | CASE B     | A 3-cycle disjoint        | VIOLATED     | SATISFIED    |
      |            | from a self-loop.         | (Contains    | (Geometry    |
      |            | ({A->B->C->A} U {X->X})   |  reflexive   |  exists as   |
      |            |                           |  X->X)       |  3-cycle)    |
      |------------|---------------------------|--------------|--------------|

---

2.5.2 Lemma: Independence Case A

Existence of Causal Validity amidst Geometric Non-Constructibility

Let $G_A$ denote a chordless directed cycle of length 4. Then this structure satisfies the Irreflexivity and Asymmetry of The Directed Causal Link (Axiom 1) (§2.1.1), yet constitutes an irreducible configuration violating the Geometric Constructibility defined by Axiom 2 (§2.3.1).

2.5.2.1 Proof: Independence Case A

Formal Verification of the Chordless 4-Cycle Model against Axiomatic Criteria

I. Model Construction

Let $G_A = (V, E)$ denote a graph forming a single connected directed cycle of length four, defined by the vertex set $V = \{A, B, C, D\}$ and the edge set $E = \{(A, B), (B, C), (C, D), (D, A)\}$. The topology strictly excludes internal chords:

$$E \cap \{(A, C), (B, D)\} = \emptyset$$

II. Verification of The Directed Causal Link (Axiom 1)

Inspection of the edge set $E$ reveals no reflexive edges.

$$\forall v \in V, (v, v) \notin E$$

Furthermore, inspection reveals no reciprocal pairs.

$$(A, B) \in E \implies (B, A) \notin E$$

III. Verification of Geometric Constructibility (Axiom 2)

Axiom 2 requires that valid geometry emerges exclusively from the closure of minimal directed 3-cycles (§2.3.1). The graph $G_A$ contains a cycle of length 4. The absence of chords precludes the decomposition of this cycle into constituent 3-cycles.

$$L_{min}(G_A) = 4 > 3$$

The structure persists as an irreducible unit exceeding the geometric quantum.

$$G_A \notin \Omega_{geo}$$

IV. Conclusion

The model $G_A$ satisfies Causal Validity while violating Geometric Constructibility. We conclude that Axiom 1 does not entail Axiom 2.

$$Ax1 \not\implies Ax2$$

Q.E.D.

---

2.5.3 Lemma: Independence Case B

Existence of Geometric Constructibility amidst Causal Invalidity

Let $G_B$ denote the graph formed by the disjoint union of a simple directed 3-cycle and an isolated vertex possessing a self-loop. Then this structure satisfies the criteria of Geometric Constructibility (Axiom 2) (§2.3.1), yet constitutes a configuration excluded by the Irreflexivity constraint of The Directed Causal Link (Axiom 1) (§2.1.1).

2.5.3.1 Proof: Independence Case B

Formal Verification of the Disjoint Reflexive Model against Axiomatic Criteria

I. Model Construction

Let $G_B$ comprise the union of two disjoint subgraphs $C_1$ and $C_2$.

1. Subgraph $C_1$: A valid 3-cycle on vertices $\{A, B, C\}$ with edge set: $E_1 = \{(A, B), (B, C), (C, A)\}$
2. Subgraph $C_2$: An isolated vertex $X$ with edge set: $E_2 = \{(X, X)\}$

The composite graph is defined as $G_B = C_1 \cup C_2$.

II. Verification of The Directed Causal Link (Axiom 1)

The Directed Causal Link imposes a universal prohibition on self-reference (§2.1.1).

$$\forall u \in V, (u, u) \notin E$$

The subgraph $C_2$ contains the reflexive edge $(X, X)$. This constitutes a direct violation of the irreflexivity condition.

$$G_B \notin \Omega_{causal}$$

III. Verification of Geometric Constructibility (Axiom 2)

Geometric Constructibility identifies the directed 3-cycle as the basis of spatial assembly (§2.3.1). The subgraph $C_1$ constitutes a valid instance of the geometric quantum.

$$C_1 \in \Omega_{geo}$$

Axiom 2 posits a positive definition for spatial assembly; it does not, in isolation, enforce the removal of non-geometric causal defects in disjoint sectors. The existence of $C_1$ satisfies the constructive criteria.

IV. Conclusion

The existence of $G_B$ demonstrates that Geometric Constructibility does not entail Causal Validity. We conclude that Axiom 2 does not imply Axiom 1.

$$Ax2 \not\implies Ax1$$

Q.E.D.

---

2.5.4 Proof: Mutual Independence

Formal Synthesis of Independence via Orthogonal Counter-Models (§2.5.1)

I. The Independence Hypothesis Two axiomatic constraints are defined as logically independent if and only if the satisfaction of one does not logically entail the satisfaction of the other. This independence is verified through the construction of specific counter-models that selectively violate one axiom while satisfying the other.

II. The Counter-Model Chain

1. Direction 1 ($\neg(Ax1 \implies Ax2)$):
   • Model Construction: Lemma §2.5.2 constructs a graph $G_A$ consisting of a chordless directed 4-cycle.
   • Axiomatic Analysis: The graph $G_A$ satisfies the Causal Primitive (it contains no self-loops and no reciprocal 2-cycles), yet it violates Geometric Constructibility (it contains an unreduced cycle of length $L=4$, exceeding the quantum limit).
   • Deduction: Causal validity does not necessitate geometric quantization.
2. Direction 2 ($\neg(Ax2 \implies Ax1)$):
   • Model Construction: Lemma §2.5.3 constructs a graph $G_B$ consisting of a disjoint union of a valid 3-cycle and an isolated self-loop ($C_3 \cup \{e_{loop}\}$).
   • Axiomatic Analysis: The graph $G_B$ satisfies Geometric Constructibility (the 3-cycle is a valid geometric quantum), yet it violates the Causal Primitive (the self-loop breaches irreflexivity).
   • Deduction: Geometric validity does not necessitate global causal consistency.

III. Convergence Since neither logical implication holds, it is demonstrated that the axioms operate on orthogonal structural properties of the graph.

IV. Formal Conclusion The Causal Primitive (Axiom 1) and Geometric Constructibility (Axiom 2) are mutually independent constraints. Neither axiom can be derived from the other; both are required to fully specify the physical substrate. $Ax1 \perp Ax2$

Q.E.D.

---

2.5.Z Implications and Synthesis

Independence

The logical orthogonality of the causal and geometric axioms is confirmed by the existence of specific countermodels that violate one while satisfying the other. This proves that time (directionality) and space (triangulation) are distinct, irreducible features of the physical substrate, not derived consequences of a single underlying rule. The separation of these constraints ensures that the theory is not circular, but rather built upon a minimal set of necessary and sufficient conditions.

This delineation clarifies the specific role of each axiom: directionality provides the thrust of evolution, while geometry provides the stage. It prevents the conflation of cause with structure, allowing us to analyze the universe as a system where temporal progress and spatial extension are independent but interacting degrees of freedom. This independence guarantees that the resulting physics is rich and non-trivial, arising from the interplay of distinct legislative forces rather than the unfolding of a single tautology.

By establishing these axioms as distinct pillars, we secure a robust foundation where the failure of one principle does not collapse the entire theoretical framework, allowing for precise diagnosis of physical pathologies. This modularity implies that the arrow of time and the fabric of space are not the same entity but are coupled mechanical systems. The universe requires both the engine of causality and the chassis of geometry to function, and recognizing their independence allows us to understand how they constrain one another to produce a consistent physical reality.

---