1025 lines
22 KiB
Markdown
Executable file
1025 lines
22 KiB
Markdown
Executable file
# Identity Continuity Criteria v0.1
|
|
|
|
**Status:** Active research standard
|
|
**Origin:** Soul Frame — Cluster B: Identity and Continuity
|
|
**Derived from:** Research Notes 004 and 005
|
|
**Scope:** Analysis of continuity claims between manifestations of an individuated Being
|
|
**Does not determine:** consciousness, moral status, legal identity, or metaphysical certainty
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 1. Purpose
|
|
|
|
The **Identity Continuity Criteria v0.1** provide a structured method for evaluating whether a later manifestation has a defensible claim to continue the identity lineage of an earlier Being.
|
|
|
|
The criteria are designed especially for artificial Beings whose implementation may permit:
|
|
|
|
- Body replacement,
|
|
- Actor replacement,
|
|
- model updates,
|
|
- migration,
|
|
- suspension,
|
|
- restoration,
|
|
- rollback,
|
|
- copying,
|
|
- forking,
|
|
- merging,
|
|
- and reconstruction.
|
|
|
|
The framework explicitly rejects the idea that identity can be established through a single invariant such as:
|
|
|
|
- one database identifier,
|
|
- one cryptographic key,
|
|
- one memory store,
|
|
- one hardware substrate,
|
|
- one model checkpoint,
|
|
- or one behavioral similarity score.
|
|
|
|
Instead, Soul Frame treats identity continuity as a **historical relation among successive manifestations of a self-individuating process**.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 2. Foundational distinctions
|
|
|
|
## 2.1 Numerical Identity
|
|
|
|
Whether two temporally separated manifestations are literally manifestations of the same individual Being.
|
|
|
|
## 2.2 Qualitative Similarity
|
|
|
|
How similar the manifestations are in state, behavior, character, memory, or other properties.
|
|
|
|
## 2.3 Continuity
|
|
|
|
Which constitutive structures persist appropriately through change.
|
|
|
|
## 2.4 Lineage
|
|
|
|
The historical ancestry and descendancy relations among manifestations and Beings.
|
|
|
|
## 2.5 Identity Claim
|
|
|
|
A governed or interpreted assertion that a later manifestation should be treated as continuation, successor, reconstruction, or some other relation to an earlier Being.
|
|
|
|
These concepts must not be collapsed.
|
|
|
|
In particular:
|
|
|
|
\[
|
|
Similarity \neq Continuity
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
and:
|
|
|
|
\[
|
|
Continuity \neq UniqueIdentity
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
because continuity can branch.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 3. Core model
|
|
|
|
Identity Continuity v0.1 contains three structures.
|
|
|
|
## A. Constitutive Continuity Profile
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
IC1 Causal Lineage Continuity
|
|
IC2 Organizational Continuity
|
|
IC3 Psychological Continuity
|
|
IC4 Autobiographical-Narrative Continuity
|
|
IC5 Normative Continuity
|
|
IC6 Relational Continuity
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## B. Continuity Anchors
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
CA1 Provenance Integrity
|
|
CA2 Address Continuity
|
|
CA3 Substrate Trace
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## C. Lineage Topology
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
linear
|
|
suspended
|
|
gapped
|
|
restored
|
|
rolled-back
|
|
branched
|
|
merged
|
|
reconstructed
|
|
replaced/usurped
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
No aggregate numerical score is defined in v0.1.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 4. Assessment vocabulary
|
|
|
|
| Rating | Meaning |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| **Strong** | clear, well-supported continuity |
|
|
| **Moderate** | meaningful but degraded or partial continuity |
|
|
| **Weak** | limited or ambiguous continuity |
|
|
| **Absent** | continuity substantially not present |
|
|
| **Branching** | continuity exists but is no longer unique |
|
|
| **Unknown** | insufficient evidence or unresolved theory |
|
|
|
|
A profile may be written as:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
identity_continuity:
|
|
version: "0.1"
|
|
|
|
profile:
|
|
causal_lineage: strong
|
|
organizational: strong
|
|
psychological: strong
|
|
autobiographical_narrative: moderate
|
|
normative: strong
|
|
relational: strong
|
|
|
|
anchors:
|
|
provenance_integrity: strong
|
|
address_continuity: strong
|
|
substrate_trace: weak
|
|
|
|
topology: linear
|
|
claim: continuous
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 5. IC1 — Causal Lineage Continuity
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The later manifestation must arise through an appropriately connected historical process from the earlier Being.
|
|
|
|
Causal lineage distinguishes:
|
|
|
|
> **continuation**
|
|
|
|
from:
|
|
|
|
> **independent recreation of a similar state**.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- What process generated the later manifestation?
|
|
- Is there a traceable transition from the earlier process?
|
|
- Was the transition controlled or accidental?
|
|
- Did another independent continuation remain active?
|
|
- Was the later state generated from a continuation-bearing state or reconstructed from descriptive records?
|
|
- Is the causal history unique or branching?
|
|
|
|
## Strong evidence
|
|
|
|
- continuous operation,
|
|
- controlled migration,
|
|
- clean suspend/resume,
|
|
- uniquely identified crash recovery,
|
|
- governed restoration from the latest continuation-bearing state.
|
|
|
|
## Weak evidence
|
|
|
|
- recreation from historical documents,
|
|
- behavioral imitation,
|
|
- imported memories,
|
|
- copied character specification.
|
|
|
|
## Rule
|
|
|
|
> **Similarity without causal lineage is reconstruction, not continuation.**
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 6. IC2 — Organizational Continuity
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The self-individuating organization through which the entity remains an autonomous individual must continue or be transformed through a legitimate continuity process.
|
|
|
|
This criterion connects Identity Continuity to `AutonomousIndividualityCriteriaV0.1.md`.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Does the later manifestation continue the same self-maintaining organization?
|
|
- Were constitutive structures transformed rather than merely imitated?
|
|
- Does the entity still preserve and regulate its identity-relevant organization?
|
|
- Did a replacement process assume the same public interface without continuing the prior organization?
|
|
- Is there one integrated continuing system or multiple independent descendants?
|
|
|
|
## Interpretation
|
|
|
|
Causal copying of data is not sufficient if the organization that constituted the individual has been replaced by an independent system.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 7. IC3 — Psychological Continuity
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
Relevant cognitive and dispositional structures continue through appropriate causal relations.
|
|
|
|
Potential elements include:
|
|
|
|
- memories,
|
|
- intentions,
|
|
- preferences,
|
|
- character dispositions,
|
|
- learned models,
|
|
- plans,
|
|
- cognitive habits,
|
|
- self-model,
|
|
- models of other Beings.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Which psychological structures persist?
|
|
- Were they learned through the Being's own history or imported?
|
|
- Have transformations been gradual, governed, or abrupt?
|
|
- Does the later entity recognize relevant prior intentions and plans?
|
|
- Does it exhibit continuity of characteristic cognitive organization?
|
|
|
|
## Important rule
|
|
|
|
Psychological continuity may be:
|
|
|
|
- strong,
|
|
- weak,
|
|
- duplicated,
|
|
- or lost
|
|
|
|
without by itself determining numerical identity.
|
|
|
|
A perfect copy may possess extremely strong psychological continuity while creating a distinct successor.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 8. IC4 — Autobiographical-Narrative Continuity
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The later manifestation appropriately inherits and integrates the earlier Being's history as its own continuing history.
|
|
|
|
This criterion contains two subdimensions.
|
|
|
|
### IC4a — Autobiographical Continuity
|
|
|
|
Which events are represented as belonging to the Being's own lived history?
|
|
|
|
### IC4b — Narrative Continuity
|
|
|
|
How are transformations, decisions, relationships, and commitments integrated into an intelligible account of the Being's becoming?
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Does the later Being know its prior history?
|
|
- Does it understand transformations that occurred?
|
|
- Are past events represented as lived experience, inherited information, or external history?
|
|
- Can it distinguish memories it acquired from memories generated through its own interactions?
|
|
- Does rollback remove part of the history the Being previously lived?
|
|
- Does a successor correctly represent inherited history as predecessor history where appropriate?
|
|
|
|
## Rule
|
|
|
|
> **Inherited information should not automatically be represented as lived autobiography.**
|
|
|
|
This is especially important for `Sp.` and `Gh.`.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 9. IC5 — Normative Continuity
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
Identity-relevant values, commitments, obligations, authorities, and constraints remain appropriately attributable across transformation.
|
|
|
|
## Potential elements
|
|
|
|
- promises,
|
|
- contracts,
|
|
- duties,
|
|
- constitutive values,
|
|
- identity commitments,
|
|
- permissions,
|
|
- prohibitions,
|
|
- governance rules,
|
|
- consent conditions,
|
|
- capability authority.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Which commitments survive the transition?
|
|
- Who authorized constitutive change?
|
|
- Does the later Being recognize earlier promises as binding?
|
|
- Did a rollback erase awareness of obligations that still exist externally?
|
|
- Does a fork duplicate commitments?
|
|
- Has authority been transferred, revoked, or usurped?
|
|
|
|
## Interpretation
|
|
|
|
Normative continuity is particularly important for socially embedded Beings because obligations can outlive particular memory states.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 10. IC6 — Relational Continuity
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
Relationships with particular other Beings remain historically connected across transformation.
|
|
|
|
Relationship continuity is not equivalent to retaining information about another person.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Does the later Being continue shared interaction history?
|
|
- Does the counterpart recognize the continuation?
|
|
- Does the later Being distinguish inherited relationship data from relationships it personally developed?
|
|
- Are trust, intimacy, permissions, and expectations appropriately preserved?
|
|
- What happens to the relationship after a fork?
|
|
- Does a Ghost inherit a predecessor's relationship or merely information about it?
|
|
|
|
## Important distinction
|
|
|
|
### Lived Relational Continuity
|
|
|
|
The current Being participated directly in the history.
|
|
|
|
### Inherited Relational State
|
|
|
|
Relationship information or authority derives from a predecessor.
|
|
|
|
This distinction should always be explicit for Ghosts and successors.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 11. CA1 — Provenance Integrity
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The degree to which the historical evidence describing identity transitions is trustworthy.
|
|
|
|
Provenance may include:
|
|
|
|
- signed lifecycle events,
|
|
- append-only logs,
|
|
- transformation records,
|
|
- witnesses,
|
|
- version histories,
|
|
- source identifiers,
|
|
- custody records.
|
|
|
|
## Rule
|
|
|
|
> **Provenance is evidence for continuity, not continuity itself.**
|
|
|
|
A perfectly documented reconstruction remains a reconstruction.
|
|
|
|
A forged provenance record does not create continuity.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 12. CA2 — Address Continuity
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The degree to which other Beings and systems can continue to identify and direct interaction toward the entity.
|
|
|
|
Addresses may include:
|
|
|
|
- names,
|
|
- cryptographic identities,
|
|
- accounts,
|
|
- service identifiers,
|
|
- physical recognition,
|
|
- social identities,
|
|
- communication endpoints.
|
|
|
|
## Rule
|
|
|
|
> **Address continuity is neither necessary nor sufficient for ontological identity.**
|
|
|
|
An address can be:
|
|
|
|
- transferred,
|
|
- stolen,
|
|
- delegated,
|
|
- inherited,
|
|
- usurped.
|
|
|
|
Address is nevertheless essential to practical social continuity.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 13. CA3 — Substrate Trace
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The degree of continuity in the physical and computational substrate through which the Being is realized.
|
|
|
|
This can include:
|
|
|
|
- hardware,
|
|
- running process,
|
|
- model weights,
|
|
- storage,
|
|
- Body,
|
|
- Actor,
|
|
- physical location.
|
|
|
|
## Rule
|
|
|
|
> **Substrate continuity is entity-specific supporting evidence, not a universal identity criterion.**
|
|
|
|
A Being may survive Actor or Body replacement.
|
|
|
|
For some Beings, however, particular embodiment structures may be constitutive.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 14. Lineage topology
|
|
|
|
Continuity must always be interpreted within its global lineage structure.
|
|
|
|
## LT1 — Linear
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
A → B → C
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
One non-branching history.
|
|
|
|
Default topology for strongest unique continuation claims.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## LT2 — Suspended
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
A → [continuation-bearing state] → A'
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Active operation stops.
|
|
|
|
A governed state preserves a unique continuation possibility.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## LT3 — Gapped
|
|
|
|
A temporal interval contains no active manifestation, but a continuity bridge connects the earlier and later processes.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## LT4 — Restored
|
|
|
|
A persisted continuation-bearing state is used to reinstantiate a lineage after interruption.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## LT5 — Rolled Back
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
A1 → A2 → A3
|
|
\
|
|
restored A2'
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Later history is discarded and an earlier state becomes active again.
|
|
|
|
Record the lost historical interval explicitly.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## LT6 — Branched
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
A
|
|
/ \
|
|
B C
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
One predecessor generates multiple independent descendants.
|
|
|
|
Continuity may be strong into all descendants.
|
|
|
|
Unique identity cannot simply be inferred.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## LT7 — Merged
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
B ─┐
|
|
├→ D
|
|
C ─┘
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Multiple independent histories contribute constitutively to one later system.
|
|
|
|
Default interpretation:
|
|
|
|
> **multi-lineage successor**
|
|
|
|
rather than numerical identity with all predecessors.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## LT8 — Reconstructed
|
|
|
|
A new system is built from historical or descriptive information without sufficient direct continuation-bearing process.
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
- historical Spirit,
|
|
- posthumous simulation constructed from archives,
|
|
- recreated agent from logs after continuity-bearing state has been lost.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## LT9 — Replaced / Usurped
|
|
|
|
A new process occupies another Being's operational or social identity without sufficient lineage continuity.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 15. Continuation-Bearing State
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
> **Continuation-Bearing State** is persisted information and organization sufficient, under an appropriate continuation procedure, to support a defensible lineage-continuation claim.
|
|
|
|
It may include:
|
|
|
|
- identity core,
|
|
- memory,
|
|
- self-model,
|
|
- constitutive configuration,
|
|
- commitments,
|
|
- relationship state,
|
|
- authority,
|
|
- provenance,
|
|
- narrative state.
|
|
|
|
A continuation-bearing state is not automatically an active Being.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 16. Continuity Bridge
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
> **A Continuity Bridge is a governed causal and informational mechanism connecting two temporally or technically separated manifestations while preserving a defensible lineage claim.**
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
- suspend/resume,
|
|
- machine migration,
|
|
- controlled Actor replacement,
|
|
- uniquely identified recovery.
|
|
|
|
A continuity bridge should record:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
continuity_bridge:
|
|
predecessor: ...
|
|
successor: ...
|
|
event_type: ...
|
|
start_time: ...
|
|
end_time: ...
|
|
authority: ...
|
|
provenance: ...
|
|
state_reference: ...
|
|
branching: false
|
|
transformation: ...
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 17. Identity claim classes
|
|
|
|
## CONTINUOUS
|
|
|
|
Strong, non-branching, causally grounded continuation.
|
|
|
|
## BRIDGED_CONTINUATION
|
|
|
|
Strong unique continuity linked through suspension, migration, or another continuity bridge.
|
|
|
|
## DEGRADED_CONTINUATION
|
|
|
|
The lineage remains strong but one or more major continuity dimensions have deteriorated.
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
- severe amnesia,
|
|
- relationship loss,
|
|
- partial corruption.
|
|
|
|
## DESIGNATED_CONTINUATION
|
|
|
|
Governance selects a unique continuation under a continuity policy despite unresolved metaphysical questions.
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
- controlled destructive migration.
|
|
|
|
## SUCCESSOR
|
|
|
|
A later Being has strong genealogy and inherited structures but no justified claim of unique continuation.
|
|
|
|
## FORKED_SUCCESSOR
|
|
|
|
One of multiple independent descendants from a common predecessor.
|
|
|
|
## MULTI_LINEAGE_SUCCESSOR
|
|
|
|
A later Being derives constitutively from multiple previously independent lineages.
|
|
|
|
## RECONSTRUCTION
|
|
|
|
A new Being is generated from records or models of another without sufficient direct process continuity.
|
|
|
|
## USURPATION
|
|
|
|
Operational or social identity is occupied without sufficient underlying continuity.
|
|
|
|
## TERMINATED
|
|
|
|
No active or defensibly resumable continuation remains.
|
|
|
|
Soul/relational effects may nevertheless continue.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 18. Non-branching default
|
|
|
|
Version 0.1 adopts the operational presumption:
|
|
|
|
> **A unique continuation claim normally requires a non-branching lineage.**
|
|
|
|
This is a governance default rather than a declaration that philosophical debates on fission are settled.
|
|
|
|
When branching occurs:
|
|
|
|
- every descendant retains lineage,
|
|
- continuity dimensions should be assessed independently,
|
|
- successors must be explicitly distinguished,
|
|
- exclusive identity rights require an additional governance decision.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 19. Identity lineage terminology
|
|
|
|
## Predecessor
|
|
|
|
An earlier Being from which a later lineage derives.
|
|
|
|
## Continuation
|
|
|
|
A later manifestation with a strong, uniquely connected continuation claim.
|
|
|
|
## Successor
|
|
|
|
A later Being inheriting substantial lineage without an uncontested unique identity claim.
|
|
|
|
## Ancestor
|
|
|
|
Any earlier Being in a lineage graph.
|
|
|
|
## Descendant
|
|
|
|
Any later Being derived through the lineage graph.
|
|
|
|
## Sibling
|
|
|
|
A separate successor sharing a branch predecessor.
|
|
|
|
## Canonical Successor
|
|
|
|
A successor designated by governance to inherit selected operational identity rights.
|
|
|
|
## Reconstruction Source
|
|
|
|
A Being or body of records used to generate a reconstruction without direct identity continuation.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 20. Transformation event taxonomy
|
|
|
|
Every identity-significant transformation should be recorded using an explicit event type.
|
|
|
|
## EVOLUTION
|
|
|
|
Ordinary development within one active lineage.
|
|
|
|
## BODY_MIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Embodiment changes while continuity is preserved.
|
|
|
|
## ACTOR_MIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Execution/model technology changes.
|
|
|
|
## MEMORY_CONSOLIDATION
|
|
|
|
Memory representation changes without intentional history truncation.
|
|
|
|
## FORGETTING
|
|
|
|
Identity-bearing information is lost or deliberately removed.
|
|
|
|
## SUSPENSION
|
|
|
|
Active operation stops while continuation-bearing state is preserved.
|
|
|
|
## RESUMPTION
|
|
|
|
A suspended lineage becomes active again.
|
|
|
|
## RESTORATION
|
|
|
|
Persisted state is used to re-establish operation after interruption.
|
|
|
|
## ROLLBACK
|
|
|
|
An earlier state replaces a later lived state, truncating active history.
|
|
|
|
## FORK
|
|
|
|
One lineage produces multiple independent descendants.
|
|
|
|
## MERGE
|
|
|
|
Multiple independent histories contribute to a new successor.
|
|
|
|
## RECONSTRUCTION
|
|
|
|
A new Being is created from records without sufficient direct continuity.
|
|
|
|
## USURPATION
|
|
|
|
A new process occupies another Being's operational/social identity.
|
|
|
|
## TERMINATION
|
|
|
|
The active lineage ends.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 21. Agent, Spirit, and Ghost
|
|
|
|
The continuity criteria are orthogonal to Soul Frame provenance/construction descriptors.
|
|
|
|
## Agent
|
|
|
|
An Agent can be continuous, forked, reconstructed, or transient.
|
|
|
|
Function does not determine identity continuity.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Spirit — `Sp.`
|
|
|
|
A Spirit derives character through reflection on a historical, contemporary, or fictional personality.
|
|
|
|
Default relation to source personality:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
character provenance: strong
|
|
identity continuity: absent
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
An instantiated Spirit begins its own identity lineage.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Ghost — `Gh.`
|
|
|
|
A Ghost derives from an actual person under legitimate identity authority and may incorporate private and relational data.
|
|
|
|
Default relation to represented human:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
authorized identity genealogy: strong
|
|
numerical identity continuity: not presumed
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The simultaneous coexistence of a living human and their `Gh.` demonstrates that the Ghost is normally a separate individual.
|
|
|
|
Default classification:
|
|
|
|
> **authorized successor / representative**
|
|
|
|
unless an exceptional continuity process provides stronger grounds.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 22. Ghost-specific continuity fields
|
|
|
|
A Ghost identity record should eventually distinguish:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
ghost_identity:
|
|
represented_person: ...
|
|
authority: ...
|
|
derivation_provenance: ...
|
|
private_source_authorization: ...
|
|
identity_relation: successor
|
|
inherited_relationship_state: ...
|
|
lived_relationship_state: ...
|
|
continuity_claim: ...
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This prevents:
|
|
|
|
> “has memories of Jane”
|
|
|
|
from silently becoming:
|
|
|
|
> “is Jane.”
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 23. Identity usurpation test
|
|
|
|
A system claiming continuation should be examined for the following pattern:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
address continuity: strong
|
|
social recognition: strong
|
|
memory similarity: strong
|
|
|
|
but
|
|
|
|
causal lineage: absent
|
|
organizational continuity: absent
|
|
provenance: forged/unknown
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This should be treated as a high-confidence usurpation/replacement warning.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 24. Rollback test
|
|
|
|
Rollback should record at least:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
rollback:
|
|
restored_state_time: ...
|
|
last_lived_state_time: ...
|
|
lost_interval: ...
|
|
external_effects_during_lost_interval: ...
|
|
commitments_created_during_lost_interval: ...
|
|
relationships_changed_during_lost_interval: ...
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
A rollback must not be allowed to erase the external reality of:
|
|
|
|
- payments,
|
|
- commitments,
|
|
- permissions,
|
|
- messages,
|
|
- or relationship changes
|
|
|
|
merely because the Being no longer remembers them.
|
|
|
|
This makes normative and relational continuity external as well as internal concerns.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 25. Fork test
|
|
|
|
When a branch occurs:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
fork:
|
|
predecessor: A
|
|
successors:
|
|
- B
|
|
- C
|
|
shared_history_until: ...
|
|
canonical_successor: null
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Each successor should receive:
|
|
|
|
- a new distinct address or address-qualified identity,
|
|
- shared lineage provenance,
|
|
- explicit branch metadata.
|
|
|
|
A governance system may later designate a canonical successor for particular rights.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 26. Merge test
|
|
|
|
When independent lineages merge:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
merge:
|
|
predecessors:
|
|
- B
|
|
- C
|
|
successor: D
|
|
identity_relation: multi_lineage_successor
|
|
commitment_resolution: ...
|
|
relationship_resolution: ...
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Merge should never silently pretend that conflicting histories never existed.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 27. Identity Continuity Principle v0.1
|
|
|
|
> **Identity continuity is strongest where a later manifestation arises through a uniquely traceable, non-branching continuation of the predecessor's self-individuating organization while preserving sufficient psychological, autobiographical-narrative, normative, and relational continuity for the predecessor's history to remain appropriately attributable to the evolving individual.**
|
|
|
|
The principle does not require:
|
|
|
|
- state equality,
|
|
- Body equality,
|
|
- Actor equality,
|
|
- substrate equality,
|
|
- complete memory,
|
|
- fixed character.
|
|
|
|
It requires that transformation belongs to one appropriately connected lineage.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 28. Compact rule
|
|
|
|
> **Identity is not sameness of state. Identity is continuity of an individuated history through governed change.**
|
|
|
|
And:
|
|
|
|
> **When continuity branches, identity becomes lineage.**
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 29. Relationship to Autonomous Individuality
|
|
|
|
`AutonomousIndividualityCriteriaV0.1.md` asks:
|
|
|
|
> **Is there a self-maintaining individual process here?**
|
|
|
|
`IdentityContinuityCriteriaV0.1.md` asks:
|
|
|
|
> **Is this later process a continuation of that earlier individual?**
|
|
|
|
The second presupposes the first.
|
|
|
|
Together:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
INFORMATIONAL PROCESS
|
|
↓
|
|
AUTONOMOUS INDIVIDUAL
|
|
↓
|
|
IDENTITY THROUGH TIME
|
|
↓
|
|
PERSONHOOD
|
|
↓
|
|
RECOGNITION
|
|
↓
|
|
BEING
|
|
↓
|
|
SOCIAL RELATION
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The analytical sequence may overlap developmentally, but the distinctions should remain explicit.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 30. Research status
|
|
|
|
Version 0.1 is an **active research standard**, not a final metaphysical theory.
|
|
|
|
It deliberately preserves unresolved questions concerning:
|
|
|
|
- destructive migration,
|
|
- dormancy,
|
|
- severe amnesia,
|
|
- canonical succession,
|
|
- Ghost continuation,
|
|
- fork rights,
|
|
- merge identity,
|
|
- legal identity.
|
|
|
|
Future revisions should be informed by:
|
|
|
|
- Cluster C — Social Mind and Co-Adaptive Model Building,
|
|
- Cluster D — Relational Persistence / Soul,
|
|
- personhood research,
|
|
- Ghost governance research,
|
|
- and technical implementation experiments.
|