Object Invocation Protocol · protocol specification
Causal Contact Rule — Convergence vs Synthesis
<!-- hierarchy:nav -->
Path: OIP › Convergence Catalogue › Causal Contact Rule
Attack type answered: equivocation between independently derived and deliberately assembled
§SELF — oip-causal-contact-rule
What this page is: the tagging rule that separates true cross-domain convergence from synthesis (designer read the sources). What it explains: why computing lineage (Simula, Smalltalk, ocaps) cannot carry the same independence load as Prigogine/Schrödinger/England without contact. Why read it: one word was load-bearing for both; naming the difference makes the strong claim bulletproof.
Scores (use on every convergence node and thinker mapping)
| Score | Meaning | Example class |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | Causal contact impossible or vanishingly unlikely (centuries/fields apart, no shared lab) | Cross-domain physics/biology |
| 7–9 | Weak or indirect contact possible | Parallel rediscovery in adjacent fields |
| 4–6 | Shared intellectual climate | Same era conferences, shared textbooks |
| 1–3 | Designer demonstrably read or inherited the source | Computing lineage in OIP build history |
| 0 | Direct assembly / citation chain | This corpus's own prior pages |
Claims that survive
- Convergence claim (strong): only nodes with high causal-contact scores.
- Synthesis claim (honorable): low-score computing/philosophy lineage deliberately integrated. Still valuable; not independent discovery.
How to attack this page
Show a node labeled 10 that has documented causal contact, or a node labeled 1 that was never in the designer's reading. Fix the tag, not the word "convergence."