# Appendix B: Information Ontology (IO) v3.0 Process Log This appendix documents the detailed analysis steps, hypotheses tested, and intermediate findings during Phase v3.0 of the Information Ontology (IO) framework development, as summarized in the main report `IO_Framework_Evolution.md`. This phase represents development based on the **I/O Process Ontology** and the **Rule-Based Emergence** approach, governed by **OMF v1.3** (`[[OMF_IO_v3.0.md]]`). For history prior to v3.0, see `[[Appendix_A_IO_v0.1-v2.0_ProcessLog.md]]`. ## Phase v3.0: Rule-Based Emergence Exploration ### Sprint 35 (v3.0): Defining the Core Process Structure & Rules * **Goal:** Define fundamental elements of I/O Process: Information State representation and Transformation Rules. * **Hypothesis:** Evolving hypergraph with local rewrite rules provides a minimal, powerful framework. * **Analysis:** * State Representation: Adopted **hypergraph** (nodes + variable arity hyperedges). Justification: Generality, locality definition, precedent (Wolfram Physics). * Transformation Rules: Adopted **local hypergraph rewrite rules** (Pattern A -> Pattern B). Justification: Known complexity generation (CA), computational nature. * Emergence Potential: Qualitative paths for emergent spacetime (connectivity scaling), particles (stable patterns), conservation laws (rule symmetries) identified. * EQR Integration: Conceptual fit identified (interaction as rule application/sampling, resolution as rule complexity, probability via pattern matching). * **Outcome:** **Compelling Finding.** Concrete foundation for IO v3.0 (Hypergraph + Rewrite Rules) established, aligning with I/O ontology and OMF. * **Decision:** **Proceed** with this implementation. ### Sprint 36 (v3.0): Testing Emergent Dimension & Stability (Simulation) * **Goal:** Test if simple rules generate D≈3 and stable structures simultaneously. * **Hypothesis:** Combination of simple splitting and joining rules yields 3D + stability. * **Methodology:** Implemented rules `{{a, b}} -> {{a, c}, {c, b}}` and `{{a, b}, {b, c}} -> Add {a, c}}` in `networkx` simulation (N=1000 steps). Measured crude dimension $D_{est}$ from diameter scaling. Lacked stability analysis implementation. * **Simulation Results:** $D_{est}$ converged to ~2.25, not 3. No stability data obtained. * **Outcome:** **Negative Result / Falsification of Tested Rules.** These specific simple rules failed Calibration Criterion 4a (Spacetime Structure - Dimension). * **Decision:** **Falsify these rules.** Need to explore rules with higher potential for 3D generation. ### Sprint 37 (v3.0): Exploring 3D-Generating Rules (Conceptual) * **Goal:** Identify candidate rules with higher likelihood of generating D≈3, drawing from literature. * **Hypothesis:** Specific rule types (e.g., involving higher arity, topology) can generate D=3. * **Analysis:** Reviewed WPP, CDT, LGT concepts. Identified candidate rule types: * Rules with creation/destruction balance. * Rules involving higher-arity hyperedges. * Rules favoring specific 3D motifs (e.g., **Tetrahedral formation:** `{{a,b,c}, {a,b,d}, {a,c,d}} -> Add {b,c,d} + ...` or simpler seed `Triangle -> Add Apex`). * **Pachner move analogs** (preserving 3D topology). * Analyzed why these might work (balancing connectivity/growth, building volume elements). Assessed computational feasibility (more complex but possible). * **Outcome:** **Compelling Finding.** Identified specific, motivated candidate rules expected to yield D≈3, providing concrete targets for next simulation. * **Decision:** **Proceed** to test these candidate rules via comparative simulation (A/B test). *(End of Appendix B content for v3.1)*