Why My Figshare Preprint Comparing Causal Fermion Systems and Super Information Theory Should Be Reinstated

Formal equivalence (Category Theory + Process Calculus), clear licensing, and Figshare compliance

TL;DR: The latest update to my SIT manuscript added a careful, fully cited comparison with Causal Fermion Systems (CFS). It’s standard scholarly work: neutral framing, explicit disclaimers, a translation table, and formal proof-sketches (category theory + process calculus) restricted to an observational fragment with falsifiability conditions. The PDF also carries an explicit CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Nothing in the file violates Figshare’s Terms & Conditions—and the record should be restored.

---

What changed in the new version

The August update added three things:

1. A new section, “Relation to Causal Fermion Systems and Conceptual Convergence.”
   It explains that SIT and recent CFS publications show topic-level convergences, and—crucially—states this is not a claim of influence or derivation. It lists two headline parallels (informational substrate; observer-free measurement) and points readers to a small translation map (Table 1).

2. A chronology appendix.
   It orients readers with dates for SIT precursors (2017–2022), how CFS looked before 2024, and what appeared in 2024–2025 (e.g., “effective dynamical collapse” and the “web of correlations”). The appendix is framed as convergence, not accusation.

3. A formal appendix (proof sketches).

   • Defines categories CSIT and CCFS and a strong symmetric monoidal dagger functor Φ : CCFS → CSIT providing a physics readout from CFS data to SIT fields.

   • Establishes black-box semantics with a natural isomorphism (externally observable behavior matches), and—separately—gives a Gorla-style process-calculus encoding proving weak bisimulation on the shared fragment.

   • States an asymmetric generality proposition (no fully faithful reverse functor) as an expressivity claim.
     All of this is explicitly scoped to a testable Observational Fragment G with assumptions and ways to falsify them.

Scholarly comparison disclaimer (included in the paper): the section documents convergences between independently published frameworks and “is not a claim of direct influence,” offered to help readers navigate two literatures.

---

Why this addition is within Figshare’s Terms & Conditions

1) It’s normal scholarly content

The SIT PDF is a standard research manuscript with a table of contents, technical sections, derivations, and a dedicated CFS comparison section.

2) Attribution, neutrality, and clear scope

CFS is correctly attributed (Finster et al.). The text explicitly rejects claims of influence and uses neutral terms like “convergence,” “functional isomorphism within a shared fragment,” and “proof sketch,” with assumptions and scope stated up front.

3) Formal criteria instead of insinuation

Equivalence is argued via Φ, black-box natural isomorphism, and weak bisimulation—formal, checkable criteria—not rhetoric. Falsifiability conditions are listed so readers know how the claims could fail.

4) Licensing and rights are explicit

The manuscript includes a CC BY-SA 4.0 license page explaining reuse and share-alike terms—exactly the clarity repositories ask for.

5) Non-prohibited, non-harmful content

It’s a static PDF about theory and experiments; no personal data, no malware, no hazardous instructions. The experimental program is conventional (optical clocks, interferometry, BECs) and framed as falsifiable predictions.

---

What the rest of the paper establishes (context for readers)

• Foundations and reductions. The manuscript derives field equations from a covariant action and shows recoveries/limits (GR, QFT, kinetic theory).

• Operational definitions and arrows of time. It defines coherence/time-density fields and proves a coherence decay (SIT H-theorem) that unifies thermodynamic and geometric arrows.

• Testable predictions. Concrete targets include gravitational responses in BECs and resonant clock shifts; sensitivities and methods are laid out.

---

If a moderation system misunderstood the CFS update

Plausible triggers—and easy fixes I’m happy to make:

• Metadata mismatch between the item’s license field and the PDF’s license page → align them 1-to-1 (the PDF already contains CC BY-SA 4.0).

• Over-strong wording → the paper already uses “convergence” and “not a claim of influence”; I can add a boxed disclaimer at the start of the CFS section for redundancy.

• Context clarity → keep the translation table and date-stamped chronology, which are descriptive and properly cited.

---

Bottom line

The new CFS material strengthens the manuscript’s scientific integrity: it compares frameworks neutrally, cites sources, uses formal criteria for equivalence, and states how claims could be falsified. That is exactly the sort of high-integrity scholarship repositories exist to host. The file clearly adheres to Figshare’s Terms & Conditions and should be reinstated.

---

Notes for readers who want to dive in

• TOC & placement of the CFS section: see “1.3 Relation to Causal Fermion Systems and Conceptual Convergence.”

• Formalism: category-theoretic Φ and black-box natural isomorphism; Gorla encoding and weak bisimulation; fragment G + falsifiability.

• License: CC BY-SA 4.0 (reuse permitted with attribution + share-alike).

---

Read what I said in the comparison between Casual Fermion System and Super Information Theory here

Super Information Theory https://zenodo.org/records/16922512

---