Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

The Theorem of Incompatible Truths: Why Any Sufficiently Complex Domain Necessarily Admits Mutually Exclusive but Individually Valid Descriptions That Cannot Be Unified

Authors: Kriger, Boris;

The Theorem of Incompatible Truths: Why Any Sufficiently Complex Domain Necessarily Admits Mutually Exclusive but Individually Valid Descriptions That Cannot Be Unified

Abstract

We investigate under what precise conditions a physical system necessarily admits multiple descriptions that are individually valid within their respective domains yet mutually incompatible when placed within a single formal framework. An independent formal apparatus is developed from five primitive notions — domain, description, validity, compatibility, and complexity — together with four axioms (Descriptive Completeness, Compression Imperative, Scale Coupling, and Non-Degeneracy). The central result is explicitly conditional: if a system satisfies all four axioms and exceeds a complexity threshold, incompatibility is provable. The incompatibility thesis is pursued by five independent proof methods: information-theoretic compression, logical orthogonality, category-theoretic non-existence of colimit, topological obstruction, and predictive trade-off. Each method reaches the same conclusion from a distinct mathematical starting point. The thesis is then subjected to four genuine antithesis attacks (trivial-domain construction, hierarchy of approximations, shared-ontology covering, systematic axiom relaxation) and an independence investigation examining whether the compatibility question is decidable from within the system. The framework is grounded in a fully formal lattice model instantiation and two computational toy models with figures. A complete peer review and revision history is included. This paper constitutes the second article in a monograph. The first article established that any consistent physical system containing a proper-subsystem observer necessarily harbours ontological content inaccessible to all internal observers. The present article extends that result: the accessible fragments are not merely incomplete but mutually contradictory. Keywords: incompatible descriptions, complexity threshold, scale-specific principles, formal impossibility, compression, scientific pluralism, theory unification, category of descriptions, topological obstruction Related works: Article 1: "Must Any Consistent Physics Contain Structure Inaccessible to All Internal Observers?" "No Final Theory: Law of Scale-Specific Principles" (Altaspera Publishing, 2025) "The Law of Imperative Uncertainty" (Altaspera Publishing, 2025) License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Boris Kriger¹² ¹ Information Physics Institute, Gosport, Hampshire, United Kingdom ² Institute of Integrative and Interdisciplinary Research, Toronto, Canada ORCID: 0009-0001-0034-2903

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average