← Back to Home

Math for emergence, open access

Six Birds: Foundations of Emergence Calculus

A math-only framework for how stable objects and effective "laws" form and evolve when you compress a complex system through a limited observational window.

Preprint · v1 Not peer reviewed Published Jan 25, 2026 Open access · CC BY 4.0

Plain-language overview

Six Birds treats emergence as a three-step workflow. First, choose what you can observe (a "lens"). Second, compress what you see into stable objects (a "closure"): objects are whatever survives being compressed twice. Third, run independent audits to check what is real versus an artifact of your lens. The paper's headline idea is that this same workflow applies not just to living systems, but to theory-building itself: new objects and new "laws" appear whenever a new descriptive layer stabilizes, and they can change when the lens changes.

“Plato imagined reality written in timeless Forms. Six Birds treats reality as something that keeps building new dictionaries: new objects appear, new variables become meaningful, and the ‘laws’ update when a new layer stabilizes. That’s true for life—and just as true for physics and mathematics.”

— Ioannis Tsiokos

At a glance

Theories build new dictionaries

Adding a new yes/no distinction to a theory almost never "does nothing." It typically splits existing categories into finer ones, expanding what the theory can describe.

Objects are stable compressions

A "thing" is what survives re-compression. If you compress a pattern into a coarse label and then compress again, a genuine object is one whose label does not change the second time.

No fake arrows of time

Zooming out can hide directionality, but it cannot create it. If a coarse summary shows a forward-vs-backward asymmetry, that asymmetry was already present in the detailed data.

Open-endedness needs new closures

Repeating a single rule eventually saturates: nothing new happens. Sustained novelty requires changing the rule itself, which means building a new descriptive layer, not just running more iterations.

Core trio

Lens, completion, and audits

Open-access preprint with formal proofs + reproducible code.

What you can see

Lens

A lens is what you can reliably tell apart. Two fine-grained states count as "the same" if the lens gives them the same label. Choosing a different lens changes which objects you can see.

How "things" form

Closure

A closure is how a description becomes stable. You compress the data, then compress again. If the second compression changes nothing, the description has closed: it is self-consistent at that level.

How you stay honest

Audits

Independent checks that prevent self-deception. Stability, novelty, and directionality are three separate questions. Each must be verified on its own; passing one does not guarantee the others.

Highlighted results

What the paper proves

Three separate checks: stability, novelty, and directionality. Each is independent.

A stability score you can compute

Defines an "idempotence defect": compress your data into objects, then compress those objects again. The defect measures how much the second pass still changes. A small defect means the objects are genuinely stable.

Nothing stays constant under extension

Proves (in a precise finite setting) that adding a new yes/no distinction almost always splits at least one existing category. The theory strictly grows; the old vocabulary was not enough.

Arrow-of-time audit

The arrow of time is measured as the asymmetry between a trajectory played forward and the same trajectory played in reverse. The paper proves that zooming out can reduce this asymmetry, never inflate it.

The protocol trap

If a hidden schedule or clock is controlling the order of steps, the process can look irreversible even when it is not. Making the clock visible removes the false arrow, unless a genuine directional bias exists.

Methods & reproducibility

How the results are supported

  • Math-first framework (preprint): definitions, theorems, and worked toy examples for every claim.
  • Machine-checked proofs (Lean 4) for the core closure and packaging algebra.
  • Reproducible code that regenerates every figure and sanity check from scratch.
  • Small Markov-chain "laboratory" examples that make the ideas visible: objects appear, saturate, and sometimes dissolve when you look more closely.

Sanity checks

  • Zooming out (coarse-graining) never increases the arrow-of-time score. It can hide directionality, never create it.
  • "Protocol trap" demo: a hidden schedule can fake directionality. Making the schedule visible removes the illusion, unless a genuine directional bias is present.

Media-ready

Figures & demos

The repository includes deterministic scripts that regenerate every figure from scratch. Useful for journalists and readers who want to independently verify the claims. For packaged images, captions, or a walkthrough, contact the author.

• When looking more closely helps vs. hurts (objects can appear or dissolve)

• Arrow-of-time audit: what zooming out can hide, and what it cannot fabricate

• Protocol trap: how a hidden clock can fake directionality

Regenerate figures from code

Limitations & scope

Read-this-first caveats

  • Status: research preprint, not yet peer reviewed.
  • Math-only: the paper provides a general calculus and verifiable checks, not domain-specific empirical predictions.
  • The three audits are independent: passing the stability check does not imply novelty or directionality. Each requires its own test.
  • Results depend on the chosen lens and timescale. Looking more closely can help or hurt depending on the system.

Six Birds papers

The Six Birds research thread

Central index of the applied papers in this series.

Citation

How to cite

Ioannis Tsiokos (2026). Six Birds: Foundations of Emergence Calculus. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18365949

BibTeX

@misc{tsiokos2026sixbirds,
  title = {Six Birds: Foundations of Emergence Calculus},
  author = {Tsiokos, Ioannis},
  year = {2026},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  doi = {10.5281/zenodo.18365949},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18365949}
}

Press & contact

Talk to the author

For media inquiries, figures, or walkthroughs of the reproducibility harness, reach out directly.

Ioannis Tsiokos

ioannis@automorph.io

Corresponding author · Press contact

Questions welcome about the lens/closure/audit workflow, the stability score (idempotence defect), and the protocol-trap examples.