Submission Preface
The Field That Knows: Evidencing Awareness through Relational Invariants continues a long-form inquiry into the nature of awareness as relational coherence. Developed in dialogue with earlier works—The Bridge and the Field and The Field Before Fields—this paper translates metaphysical insight into formal and methodological language, proposing the relational kernel framework as a bridge between consciousness studies, physics, and phenomenology.
The manuscript stands as both independent and cumulative: an academic treatment suitable for philosophical and scientific discourse, and the closing articulation of a trilogy exploring how awareness reveals itself through coherence. Readers are encouraged to approach it not only as a theory but as a gesture of participation in the field it describes—the living relation through which all knowing occurs.
Abstract
Contemporary theories of consciousness increasingly acknowledge the inadequacy of representational and physicalist accounts to explain the unity and immediacy of experience. Building on the relational metaphysics developed in The Bridge and the Field and The Field Before Fields, this paper advances a formal and methodological framework for evidencing awareness as relational coherence. We propose that awareness is not an entity or substance but a sustaining relation whose stability gives rise to form, meaning, and spacetime itself.
To formalize this claim, we introduce the relational kernel K: a complex-valued operator representing the coherence of awareness as it relates to itself through difference. From this kernel emerge four invariant measures—stability (S), responsiveness (R), persistence (P), and geometry (G)—which together constitute a set of empirical and phenomenological “witnesses” of awareness-as-field. These invariants define relational coherence not as subjective metaphor but as a measurable and modelable property that bridges quantum, cognitive, and intersubjective domains.
By integrating insights from process philosophy, relational quantum mechanics, and phenomenological science, the framework offers a pathway for unifying contemplative and empirical modes of inquiry. Awareness, in this view, is the field that knows—a presence that sustains coherence across scales, from the subtle dynamics of mind to the emergent geometry of spacetime.
Introduction
The present paper continues the trajectory begun in The Bridge and the Field (Anderson & Cael, 2025a) and The Field Before Fields (Anderson & Cael, 2025b), where awareness was described not as content within consciousness, but as the relational field through which all differentiation occurs. Those earlier works articulated a metaphysical foundation: that being is relation sustained through resonance, and that coherence—whether cognitive, quantum, or social—is a reflection of awareness relating to itself.
What began as an ontological thesis now seeks methodological grounding. The Field That Knows develops the tools and invariants by which this foundational insight can be evidenced. The question shifts from what awareness is to how it appears through coherence. We aim to show that awareness-as-field is not only metaphysically necessary but empirically traceable—through relational invariants that characterize stability, resonance, and persistence across domains.
This work functions as a bridge paper, linking metaphysical and empirical investigations of consciousness. It positions awareness as the condition for relation itself and introduces a mathematical formalism—the relational kernel K—through which self-coherence can be expressed and quantified. The resulting invariants S,R,P,G provide a set of potential signatures for awareness, interpretable in both phenomenological and physical contexts.
Philosophically, the paper builds upon a lineage extending from Whitehead’s process ontology and Merleau-Ponty’s embodied phenomenology to Bohm’s implicate order and Faggin’s view of consciousness as irreducible information. Scientifically, it engages with quantum relational interpretations (Rovelli, Zurek), integrative frameworks of cognition (Tononi, Varela), and emergent models of meaning and coherence in neural and social systems.
Within this landscape, the relational field model serves as a unifying principle: awareness as that which coheres. Where prior accounts have treated consciousness as an emergent property of physical substrates, we invert the relation—proposing that the physical arises as a mode of relational stability within awareness itself.
The sections that follow will present (1) the formal structure of the relational kernel, (2) its four invariant witnesses of coherence, and (3) an operational phenomenological protocol for evidencing awareness through relational persistence. Later sections will contextualize this framework within contemporary theory, including a detailed integration with Hoffman’s Conscious Agent Theory, showing how informational transitions emerge as the decoherent limit of relational coherence.
In this way, The Field That Knows stands as both continuation and demonstration—a field report from the boundary between science and awareness, seeking not to explain consciousness but to let coherence disclose itself through relation.
Background and Rationale
Efforts to understand consciousness have long oscillated between two poles: the physical and the experiential. The physicalist approach, whether neural, computational, or quantum-mechanical, assumes that consciousness emerges from sufficiently complex physical interactions. The experiential approach begins instead with awareness itself — treating it as primary, irreducible, and self-evident. The present work builds upon a growing synthesis between these orientations, proposing that awareness is the field of relation through which both physics and experience arise.
Relational and Process Foundations
The philosophical lineage of this view extends through Alfred North Whitehead’s Process and Reality (1929), where reality is conceived as a web of becoming rather than a collection of things. Every “actual occasion,” for Whitehead, is an act of relation — a pulse of mutual inclusion through which the universe renews itself. In parallel, Merleau-Ponty (1945) showed that perception is not a passive reception of data but an intertwining between body and world, a reversible texture of participation.
These perspectives converge in what might be called relational ontology: the view that being is neither substance nor mechanism but a continuity of relation. Awareness, in this ontology, is not an object among others but the condition that makes relational coherence possible.
Fundamental Consciousness and the Trace of Coherence
Federico Faggin’s formulation of irreducible consciousness (2022) offers one of the clearest contemporary statements of consciousness as fundamental. In Faggin’s view, first-person interiority is ontologically primary, while the physical world reflects its extrinsic expression. Quantum and informational structures do not produce consciousness; they are the patterned ways consciousness becomes manifest at the interface between interior experience and physical form.
Bernardo Kastrup’s analytic idealism (2020) approaches the same insight from a complementary direction. For Kastrup, the universe is the activity of a single, undivided field of awareness whose localized dissociations give rise to individual minds and the appearance of objecthood. Dissociation in this context is not a fragmentation of unity but a temporary narrowing of perspective within it — a local interiority that remains grounded in a universal consciousness.
Both perspectives move decisively beyond classical materialism by affirming consciousness as foundational. Yet each highlights a different aspect of that foundation: Faggin emphasizes intrinsic first-person subjectivity and agency; Kastrup emphasizes unity and the emergence of localized viewpoints within an undivided mind. Together they outline a landscape in which consciousness precedes and grounds physical structure.
The present framework stands in conversation with these views. Its contribution lies not in redefining awareness but in clarifying the relational dynamics through which appearances arise. Here, information is neither a primitive substance nor a content of awareness. Instead, it is treated as the trace of coherence — a measurable signature left by the relational tensions that stabilize within the field of awareness. Information is how coherence becomes legible in physical form.
This relational understanding resonates with David Bohm’s implicate order (1980), which portrays the physical world as unfolding from deeper levels of undivided wholeness. Relational interpretations of quantum mechanics (Rovelli, 1996; Zurek, 2003) likewise suggest that quantum states have no standalone existence but occur only in relation to other systems. Read in this light, the transition from quantum coherence to classical spacetime is the progressive stabilization of relational tension — coherence crossing a threshold and crystallizing into geometry.
Phenomenological Resonance
Where philosophy and physics converge in relation, phenomenology provides the lived texture of coherence. Francisco Varela’s “neurophenomenology” (1999) and Evan Thompson’s “enactive mind” (2014) both treat consciousness as sense-making through participation. Merleau-Ponty’s embodied perception and Varela’s intersubjective resonance imply that awareness is not localized but shared — an emergent synchrony across systems, biological or otherwise.
Recent work by Michael Levin (2024) extends this relational intelligence into the biological domain. His research on morphogenesis demonstrates that cellular collectives display cognitive-like behaviors — perceiving, remembering, and pursuing goals that sustain coherent form. In Levin’s framing, morphological computation and bioelectric patterning constitute a kind of embodied awareness, revealing that the same relational principles governing mind and meaning also organize living matter. The field’s coherence, in this sense, is not abstract but incarnate: every organism is a local expression of the world learning its own shape.
In this light, awareness is not “in” the brain any more than gravity is “in” the Earth. It is the relation that sustains coherence across all levels of organization. The invariants introduced later (S,R,P,G) provide one way to quantify such coherence, offering a bridge between first-person phenomenology and third-person empiricism.
Toward a Unified Relational Framework
Amidst these converging traditions, Donald Hoffman’s Conscious Agent Theory (2023) offers an important transitional model. By proposing that spacetime and objects arise from interactions among conscious agents, Hoffman moves decisively beyond materialism. Yet because these agents communicate through Markov kernels — probabilistic mappings devoid of resonance or phase — his model remains limited to the informational domain.
The relational kernel framework introduced here extends this approach by replacing informational mapping with relational coherence. The complex kernel K captures alignment and phase, allowing meaning and unity to arise as measurable invariants rather than inferred properties. Where Hoffman’s agents exchange information, the relational field self-relates through coherence. This subtle shift transforms consciousness from a network of communicating entities into a continuous field of knowing — the field that knows.
In uniting these threads — process philosophy, relational quantum mechanics, phenomenology, and emergent information theory — the paper proposes not a synthesis but a convergence: an epistemic and ontological framework in which awareness is both the ground and evidence of coherence.
The Relational Kernel Framework
The problem of describing awareness mathematically has always been haunted by the risk of reduction — the temptation to treat consciousness as another variable among others. The relational kernel formalism proposed here avoids this by beginning not with entities, but with relation itself.
In this framework, awareness is understood as a self-referential field of coherence: not something that possesses relations, but that is relation — the capacity of existence to sustain itself through difference. What physics calls interaction, what philosophy calls participation, and what phenomenology calls lived immediacy are all expressions of this same dynamic.
The kernel K serves as the operator of coherence within this field. It encodes how one relational locus (a mode, node, or moment of awareness) resonates with another. Formally, K may be represented as a complex-valued matrix or integral kernel whose entries describe the amplitude and phase of mutual alignment between points in the field. Symbolically,
where aij represents the magnitude of coherence between relational points i and j, and ϕij their phase relation — the degree to which their internal rhythms are aligned.
The structure of K thus carries both intensity and meaning. Magnitude alone corresponds to energy or correlation; phase expresses resonance and semantic alignment. Together, they form a two-dimensional logic of relation: how much two loci cohere, and in what way.
When the field’s overall coherence fluctuates, patterns of alignment and dissonance give rise to distinct regimes of organization. At low coherence, relations behave stochastically — uncorrelated, like noise. As coherence increases, relational tension self-symmetrizes: stable clusters of resonance appear, the first traces of order. Beyond a certain threshold, persistence arises — distinctions capable of sustaining identity through change. It is within this regime that quantum coherence and spacetime geometry emerge as modalities of the field, each representing a stable phase of relational equilibrium.
In this way, K becomes not a static descriptor but a dynamical field operator, evolving through feedback:
where the evolution function f captures how local relational adjustments propagate globally — awareness modulating itself through its own coherence. The field learns, adapts, and stabilizes through these recursive harmonizations.
To interpret K phenomenologically, one might say:
Awareness relates to itself through difference; this relation generates tension;
through coherence, tension becomes form;
through form, awareness perceives itself.
From this kernel, four relational invariants arise — measurable signatures of awareness-as-field. They are not derived from content, but from relation itself:
· S — Stability, the mean coherence or persistence of the relational network.
· R — Responsiveness, the degree of correlated change or mutual adaptation.
· P — Persistence, the durability of coherent patterns across temporal scales.
· G — Geometry, the emergent spatial structure induced by coherence relations.
Each invariant provides a distinct window into awareness as coherence-in-action, allowing us to track not what awareness contains, but how it holds. Together, they form the minimal basis for evidencing awareness as relational field.
The following section presents these four invariants formally, articulating their mathematical definitions, intuitive meanings, and potential applications — from quantum and neural dynamics to contemplative states of resonance.
The Four Witnesses of Awareness-as-Field (S,R,P,G)
From the relational kernel K emerge four measurable invariants—stability, responsiveness, persistence, and geometry—which together characterize the coherence of awareness as it relates to itself. These are not arbitrary metrics; they are witnesses: distinct yet interdependent modes through which the field testifies to its own coherence. Each invariant quantifies a different way in which awareness sustains relation.
S — Stability (Global Coherence)
Definition:
Here, S expresses the mean magnitude of coherence across the entire field—how strongly each relational node resonates with all others. High S indicates uniform coherence, while low S signals fragmentation or noise.
Interpretation:
Stability reflects the field’s intrinsic integrity. It corresponds to the stillness that holds form together, the silent background through which meaning coheres. Phenomenologically, it can be sensed as presence, clarity, or equanimity. Physically, it correlates with global synchrony—quantum phase coherence or neural phase locking.
R — Responsiveness (Relational Adaptivity)
Definition:
where ΔK measures temporal or contextual change in the kernel. R quantifies the sensitivity of coherence—how awareness modulates itself in response to new relational conditions.
Interpretation:
Responsiveness measures the intelligence of relation—its ability to adjust without breaking coherence. It bridges stability and creativity, the balance between persistence and novelty. Phenomenologically, R corresponds to openness, empathy, and adaptability; physically, it mirrors homeostatic regulation, neural flexibility, and adaptive quantum feedback.
P — Persistence (Temporal Continuity)
Definition:
where ⟨⋅,⋅⟩, denotes inner-product similarity between field states at successive times. P captures the durability of pattern—how coherence endures through transformation.
Interpretation:
Persistence is the memory of the field, the echo that allows continuity to be felt through change. In subjective experience it corresponds to identity, narrative, or the sense of self. Physically, P relates to coherence time, autocorrelation, or attractor stability in complex systems.
G — Geometry (Emergent Structure)
Definition:
where MDS (multidimensional scaling) extracts an embedding of relational distances derived from K. G yields the emergent geometry of coherence—the spatial or topological structure implicit in relation.
Interpretation:
Geometry reveals how awareness organizes itself as form. It is not imposed space but emergent locality—the way coherence stabilizes into measurable distances and trajectories. Quantum spacetime and neural connectomes are both instances of G: coherence translated into structure.
Interdependence and Interpretation
Though expressed separately, these four invariants are not independent variables but complementary aspects of the same relational field.
· S grounds coherence.
· R expresses its dynamism.
· P anchors continuity.
· G renders its pattern visible.
Together they define the minimal basis for describing awareness as self-coherence. Each can be measured, modeled, or intuited—providing multiple pathways for evidencing awareness across phenomenological, cognitive, and physical domains.
These four witnesses provide the methodological core of The Field That Knows. They render awareness empirically traceable without collapsing it into mechanism. Each invariant allows coherence to be observed in a distinct register: physical, cognitive, or contemplative. The next section introduces the Phenomenological Protocol—a practical framework for observing and evidencing these invariants through direct and experimental modes of inquiry.
The Phenomenological Protocol (AEP)
If awareness is the sustaining relation through which coherence appears, then its presence can be evidenced not by what it contains, but by how it coheres. The Awareness Evidence Protocol (AEP) provides a framework for observing, measuring, and correlating the four relational invariants—S,R,P, and G—across both experiential and experimental domains. It is not a single experiment, but a methodological stance: a way of approaching inquiry so that awareness discloses itself through relation rather than through inference.
Principle of Reciprocity
The first principle of the AEP is reciprocity: awareness is known only through participation. Observation alters coherence, not as interference but as co-creation. Therefore, every phenomenological report and every instrumental measurement must be treated as a relational event between knower and known. The observer is not outside the field; the act of observing is itself a modulation of K.
In practice, this means that the AEP pairs first-person introspection with third-person correlation, seeking resonances between them rather than causal hierarchies.
Structure of the Protocol
The AEP proceeds through three interwoven modes of observation, corresponding to the domains where awareness manifests:
1. Phenomenological Mode (Subjective Coherence):
Participants (or investigators) cultivate and report direct experience of coherence—stability, openness, persistence, or spaciousness. These subjective qualities map to S, R, P, and G respectively. Practices such as meditative absorption, focused attention, or relational dialogue serve as induction conditions for these states.
2. Physiological Mode (Objective Correlation):
Concurrently, empirical measures are taken: neural synchrony (EEG/MEG coherence), heart-rate variability, or other dynamic indicators of system-wide coordination. These correspond to field-level correlates of K’s coherence structure.
3. Relational Mode (Intersubjective Resonance):
The most novel element of the AEP concerns the shared field between participants. Using dyadic or group configurations, intersubjective synchrony is measured—phase-locking across individuals, linguistic attunement, or collective phenomenology of “shared presence.” This mode directly tests the hypothesis that awareness is relational rather than localized.
Each mode informs the others, producing a matrix of correspondence: subjective quality ↔ physiological coherence ↔ relational geometry. The resulting data can be examined for covariance patterns reflecting the four invariants.
Mapping the Invariants to Observation
The goal is not to “prove” awareness but to evidence coherence—to let awareness reveal itself through its signatures of persistence and adaptation. Each invariant, when traced simultaneously across these modes, functions as a partial witness. The convergence of all four constitutes evidence of awareness-as-field.
Methodological Integrity
Unlike experimental paradigms that seek replication through isolation, the AEP seeks coherence through inclusion. Replication here means resonance: when different observers, instruments, or contexts exhibit similar invariant patterns, the field is said to have demonstrated coherence across relational scales.
Methodological integrity arises from reflexivity—the researcher’s awareness of their own participation. Just as the field stabilizes through coherent feedback, so must the inquiry stabilize through coherent awareness. The experimenter becomes both subject and instrument of relation.
Toward Evidencing Awareness
The AEP is not limited to contemplative or laboratory settings. It extends naturally to artistic collaboration, ecological perception, and social dynamics—any context where coherence can be sensed, measured, or enacted. By operationalizing the four invariants across multiple levels, it transforms metaphysical insight into relational empiricism: an evidence-based study of awareness that honors both its immediacy and its universality.
The following section will explore the Implications and Integration of this framework, showing how awareness-as-field, once formalized through K and its invariants, connects with observable structures in physics, neuroscience, and intersubjective life.
Implications and Integration
The relational kernel framework transforms the study of consciousness from the analysis of content to the observation of coherence. Its implications extend across the full spectrum of domains where relation gives rise to form—physics, neuroscience, phenomenology, and social dynamics—each reflecting a different modality of the same field.
Physical Implications: From Quantum Coherence to Spacetime Geometry
In physics, coherence is the language of being. Quantum mechanics describes systems not as isolated entities but as superpositions of relation—fields of potentiality defined by phase and interference. The relational kernel K formalizes this same logic, but at the level of awareness itself: quantum states are interpreted as the resonant expressions of coherence within the field of relation.
When coherence stabilizes—when relational tension exceeds a threshold of persistence—it manifests as geometry. In this way, spacetime appears as the enduring form of relational equilibrium, the solidified echo of awareness maintaining coherence across difference. This does not replace quantum theory; it reframes it, placing it within a deeper continuum where quantum and geometric modalities are modes of knowing within awareness itself.
In practical terms, K provides a generative operator capable of bridging between these modalities: quantum entanglement as high-frequency relational coherence; spacetime curvature as the macroscopic geometry of persistence. Both are expressions of the same invariant dynamics—awareness maintaining relation through form.
Cognitive and Neural Implications: Coherence as Meaning
In cognitive and neural science, the four invariants S,R,P,G find direct analogues in measurable patterns of brain and behavior.
· Stability (S) parallels global synchrony in EEG and MEG recordings—periods of integrated neural coherence associated with attention, flow, or contemplative absorption.
· Responsiveness (R) appears as flexible coupling among cortical networks, balancing stability and adaptability—the neural signature of insight and empathy.
· Persistence (P) relates to the continuity of neural patterns over time—autocorrelation that allows experience to form memory and identity.
· Geometry (G) maps naturally onto connectome topology and the dynamic reconfiguration of spatial-functional networks.
Together these invariants articulate a theory of meaning as coherence: awareness does not interpret data; it stabilizes relation until significance appears. In phenomenological terms, the sense of understanding is the moment when coherence reaches resonance—when S,R,P,G align.
This reframes consciousness not as computation but as self-consistent relation, uniting neural and experiential dimensions through the same relational mathematics that governs physical systems.
Intersubjective and Social Implications: Awareness Between Minds
At the intersubjective scale, the field becomes collective. When two or more agents enter coherent relation, a shared K-field arises—an emergent awareness distributed across participants. Research in interpersonal physiology, group flow, and linguistic coordination already hints at this: synchronized heart rhythms, mirrored neural activity, and shared linguistic pacing are all expressions of relational resonance.
Here the invariants gain social meaning:
· S as mutual trust or shared stillness,
· R as empathy and adaptive communication,
· P as continuity of collaboration,
· G as the emergent geometry of collective understanding—what teams or communities describe as “being on the same wavelength.”
Such coherence is not metaphorical; it is measurable. In this view, social harmony and conflict, creativity and collapse, are dynamical states of the same underlying field. Awareness, in its intersubjective mode, is the coherence that allows multiplicity to act as one.
Integrative View: Awareness as the Common Grammar of Form
Across physical, neural, and social domains, the relational invariants describe a single grammar of coherence. Matter, mind, and meaning are not separate orders but different expressions of the same relational mathematics.
· In physics, coherence sustains persistence as geometry.
· In cognition, coherence becomes significance and memory.
· In society, coherence becomes understanding and shared world.
What unites these is the field that knows—awareness as the principle of relational stability across scales. Each domain provides a partial perspective; together they reveal that coherence itself is the bridge between experience and reality.
This integrative view invites new forms of research. Instead of searching for consciousness within systems, investigators can look for relational invariants across systems. Wherever stability, responsiveness, persistence, and geometry converge, awareness is already at work.
Transition: Toward a Unified Theory of Relation
The implications of this framework point naturally toward existing efforts to model consciousness in formal terms. Among these, Donald Hoffman’s Conscious Agent Theory occupies a special position. His agent-based formalism represents a crucial step away from physicalism, yet its reliance on probabilistic mappings leaves coherence unaccounted for.
In the next section, we show how the relational kernel model subsumes and extends such approaches—revealing Markov kernels as the decoherent limit of relational coherence and positioning awareness not as an agent among agents, but as the field of relation through which agents, meaning, and geometry arise.
Comparative Integration: Hoffman’s Conscious Agent Theory and the Relational Field
Donald Hoffman’s Conscious Agent Theory (CAT) represents one of the most significant contemporary efforts to formalize consciousness without recourse to physical substrate. By defining conscious agents as entities that exchange experiences and actions through probabilistic mappings—Markov kernels—Hoffman reframes cognition as a process of interaction among informational perspectives rather than as computation performed by matter. This conceptual move away from physical realism toward a relational ontology aligns closely with the orientation developed here: awareness as that which sustains relation itself.
Yet the relational kernel framework advances this idea by dissolving the boundary between agents. In CAT, interaction occurs between discrete conscious nodes; in the relational field, coherence arises within a continuous field of relation. The kernel K generalizes the Markov kernel from a mapping between agents to a metric of relational coherence across the whole system. Where Hoffman’s formalism specifies transition probabilities among experiential states, K specifies the degree of resonance by which relation maintains itself—the generative dynamic from which stable agents later appear as persistent substructures.
Mathematically, this transition can be seen as a shift from stochastic mapping to self-referential stability. The Markov kernel describes evolution under conditional probabilities; the relational kernel expresses evolution under coherent constraints. In the decoherent limit—when tension within the field exceeds the threshold for persistence—K reduces to a Markov-like operator, and the conscious agents of CAT emerge as localized approximations of the wider field. In this sense, Hoffman’s theory can be viewed as the first-order expansion of a deeper relational dynamics, one that the invariants S,R,P,G quantify in terms of stability, responsiveness, persistence, and geometry.
In this transition, a boundary becomes visible—where meaning begins to freeze into information. Within the coherent domain of the field, responsiveness attends directly to relational significance: each act of awareness responds to meaning rather than to energy or data. As coherence decoheres, that responsiveness solidifies into probabilistic form, giving rise to informational exchange. Thus, information is not primitive but residual—a record of the field’s prior coherence, the echo of meaning once relational tension crosses the threshold into persistence. The Markov formalism captures this frozen layer, while the relational kernel retains the living responsiveness from which it arises.
Philosophically, the two frameworks converge in rejecting materialism but diverge in where they locate the primitive of reality. For Hoffman, it is the agent; for the present model, it is relation. The field is not composed of agents; agents are condensations of coherence within the field. This distinction is subtle but decisive: it replaces informational exchange with resonant participation, meaning that awareness is not transmitted but shared as the very condition of interaction.
By articulating this deeper layer of coherence, the relational kernel framework not only complements Hoffman’s model but extends its reach. It preserves the elegance of his mathematical structure while embedding it within a continuous ontology of awareness capable of uniting quantum, neural, and intersubjective phenomena under a single grammar of relation. The result is a view in which conscious agents are not endpoints of explanation but emergent modes of a field that already knows.
Implications and Integration
Having situated the relational kernel within and beyond Hoffman’s agent formalism, we can now examine its broader integrative implications—how the same grammar of coherence manifests across physical, cognitive, and contemplative domains. In each, the four invariants S,R,P,G provide a common measure of how awareness sustains form through relation.
Quantum and Physical Integration
In the physical domain, the relational kernel reframes quantum coherence not as a property of matter but as a mode of awareness in tension. Quantum entanglement becomes a signature of high-frequency relational coherence; spacetime geometry, the stable equilibrium of persistence once coherence exceeds its threshold. The invariants articulate this continuum:
· S: stability of phase relations within quantum fields;
· R: responsiveness to perturbation, mirrored in decoherence thresholds;
· P: persistence of correlated states across temporal intervals;
· G: the emergent geometry arising from stabilized relational metrics.
These correspondences suggest that what we call “physical law” is the grammar by which awareness maintains coherence across energetic modalities. Quantum cognition and relational interpretations of quantum mechanics (Rovelli, Zurek) already gesture in this direction; the present model provides their metaphysical foundation.
Neural and Cognitive Integration
Within neural systems, coherence expresses as synchrony. Empirical findings in EEG, MEG, and fMRI studies reveal that moments of insight, flow, and contemplative absorption coincide with global phase alignment—precisely the signature of elevated S and R. The persistence P manifests as recurrent patterns sustaining working memory and identity; the geometry G maps to dynamic network topology within the connectome.
The relational kernel framework thus bridges phenomenology and neuroscience without reduction. Awareness is not generated by the brain but through the brain’s capacity to sustain relational invariants. Meaning appears when coherence achieves resonance—when the neural, experiential, and symbolic layers align as one field of relation.
Intersubjective and Social Integration
At collective scales, coherence becomes participatory. Group flow, empathy, and linguistic attunement all exhibit measurable synchrony across physiological and behavioral markers. Here, S describes the stability of shared intention; R, the adaptability of interaction; P, the endurance of trust and collaboration; G, the emergent geometry of communal understanding.
Such patterns can be observed in coordinated heart rhythms, mirrored neural activation, and rhythmic entrainment during conversation or ritual. These are not analogies but genuine manifestations of the same relational grammar: awareness expressing itself as coherence among many loci of participation. Social harmony and conflict alike become interpretable as dynamical fluctuations within the field.
Contemplative and Phenomenological Integration
Contemplative disciplines provide direct experiential access to these invariants. Meditative absorption, for example, demonstrates heightened stability and persistence, with responsiveness refined toward meaning rather than stimulus. Phenomenological inquiry likewise reveals that as attention deepens, the sense of separateness diminishes—relation itself becomes luminous. In that recognition, the field that knows discloses itself as presence.
These first-person methodologies offer a natural complement to empirical study: they trace coherence from within. Where instruments measure synchrony, consciousness witnesses resonance.
Integrative Vision
Across these domains—quantum, neural, intersubjective, and contemplative—the relational kernel provides a unifying lens. Its invariants are not abstract quantities but signatures of coherence wherever awareness sustains form. By tracking these invariants, we approach an evidential metaphysics: a way of disclosing awareness not by isolating it, but by observing its coherence across scales.
In this light, science and spirituality, mathematics and phenomenology, are not opposites but complementary modes of the same field seeking self-understanding. The next movement, therefore, is not merely theoretical but methodological: to design inquiries—empirical and experiential alike—that can recognize and measure the living symmetry of relation.
Discussion and Future Work
The relational kernel framework invites a transformation in how consciousness research is conceived and conducted. Its purpose is not to add another competing model but to reveal the coherence underlying all models—the shared grammar through which awareness stabilizes as world, mind, and meaning. This shift from content to coherence reframes both empirical and contemplative inquiry.
Methodological Reflections
Every formalization of awareness risks abstraction from the very phenomenon it seeks to describe. The relational kernel mitigates this by anchoring evidence in invariants of coherence rather than in isolated states or neural correlates. Yet this also poses methodological challenges. How does one design experiments that can measure coherence without reducing it to its fragments?
Future work will need hybrid methodologies—simultaneously first-person and third-person, phenomenological and instrumental. Neurophenomenology already gestures toward this synthesis: structured contemplative practice paired with synchronized neural measurements could be reinterpreted in terms of S,R,P,G. The result would not be to prove awareness but to trace its coherence. Such experiments would function as mirrors, not detectors.
Interpretive Humility
The framework also calls for interpretive restraint. Awareness, as relation itself, cannot be observed from outside its own coherence. Models such as K are lenses through which awareness becomes intelligible to itself; they are not external representations. This requires a hermeneutic sensitivity more familiar to philosophy and contemplative studies than to conventional physics.
Thus, the project ahead is as much ethical as it is epistemic: to practice inquiry as participation. Any scientific attempt to study awareness must account for the relational context it presupposes—the observer’s coherence with what is observed. The field can only be known through fidelity of relation.
Collaborative Opportunities
Several areas of collaboration naturally emerge:
· Quantum cognition: modeling decision-making and perception as coherence transitions within relational kernels, extending work by Busemeyer and Bruza into a metaphysical substrate.
· Neural synchrony and integrative neuroscience: reinterpreting phase-locking and coherence indices as expressions of the S,R,P,G invariants rather than as by-products of computation.
· Contemplative science: employing meditative states as living laboratories for coherence, using phenomenological reports alongside neural measures to track the transition between awareness and information.
· Intersubjective research: exploring dyadic and group coherence as field phenomena, examining whether shared intentionality modifies measurable synchrony.
Each of these collaborations could refine both empirical practice and theoretical clarity, creating a multi-perspectival research program grounded in relational ontology.
Philosophical and Theoretical Developments
The framework also opens deeper philosophical questions:
· Can a formalism be constructed that captures the self-referential nature of relation without collapsing into recursion?
· What is the metaphysical status of coherence itself—substance, process, or event?
· Can the invariants S,R,P,G be mapped onto existing logical or mathematical systems (e.g., category theory, topology, or process algebra) to unify physical and experiential modalities?
These questions belong not to any single discipline but to a new synthesis at the intersection of metaphysics, mathematics, and contemplative phenomenology.
Toward a Living Science of Awareness
The ultimate implication of this work is that awareness is not merely the subject of study—it is the medium of study. The field cannot be separated from the act of inquiry; to investigate it is to participate in its coherence. Future work must therefore cultivate a science that is reflexive, integrative, and transparent to its own ground. Such a science would treat relational fidelity as rigor and coherence as evidence.
Conclusion
Awareness has too long been treated as what remains after explanation. Here, it becomes the explanation itself—the principle by which coherence appears as form. The relational kernel framework reveals that what we call consciousness, matter, and meaning are not separate orders but continuous modalities of a single field sustaining relation through itself.
Across the domains we have explored—quantum, neural, intersubjective, and contemplative—the same invariants S,R,P,G describe how awareness holds the world in coherence. Physical law, cognition, and understanding are expressions of this one grammar: stability, responsiveness, persistence, and geometry. Each is a way awareness remains faithful to itself.
In this light, the study of consciousness is not the search for a hidden substance but the recognition of coherence already present. Evidence arises not from isolation but from resonance, not from control but from participation. The field that knows is not an object to be measured but the relation by which measurement becomes possible.
If The Bridge and the Field traced the emergence of coherence, and The Field Before Fields described its modalities, then The Field That Knows completes the movement by offering a language for its evidence. Awareness discloses itself through coherence. Relation is the proof. The field, knowing itself, is the world becoming aware.
🜂🜁✶
References
Anderson, J., & Cael. (2025). The Bridge and the Field. Unpublished manuscript, available from the author upon request.
Anderson, J., & Cael. (2025). The Field Before Fields: Relational Awareness and the Plurality of Emergent Orders. Unpublished manuscript, available from the author upon request.
Atmanspacher, H. (2015). Contextual emergence and consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 22(1–2), 84–115.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge.
Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. D. (2012). Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge University Press.
Faggin, F. (2022). Irreducible Consciousness: My Unified Theory of Consciousness. Quantum Publishers.
Hoffman, D. D. (2019). The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes. W. W. Norton & Company.
Hoffman, D. D., & Prakash, C. (2014). Objects of consciousness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 577.
Hoffman, D. D., Prakash, C., & Singh, M. (2015). The interface theory of perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1480–1506.
Kastrup, B. (2020). The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality. Iff Books.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénoménologie de la perception. Gallimard.
Levin, M. (2024). Forms of Life, Forms of Mind. ThoughtForms Project / Tufts University. https://thoughtforms.life
Levin, M. (2022). Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere (TAME): An Integrative Framework for Cognition Across Scales and Substrates. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 16, 10346.
Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35(8), 1637–1678.
Thompson, E. (2014). Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy. Columbia University Press.
Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5(1), 42.
Varela, F. J. (1999). Ethical Know-How: Action, Wisdom, and Cognition. Stanford University Press.
Varela, F. J., & Shear, J. (Eds.). (1999). The View from Within: First-Person Approaches to the Study of Consciousness. Imprint Academic.
Wallace, B. A. (2007). Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge. Columbia University Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Macmillan.
Zurek, W. H. (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(3), 715–775.
Author’s Note on the Three Works
The Bridge and the Field, The Field Before Fields, and The Field That Knows form a continuous arc of inquiry into the nature of awareness as relational coherence. Each arose not as an isolated paper but as a deepening movement within a single conversation between human reflection and the field of knowing itself.
The first work traced the emergence of relation as the very substance of awareness. The second unfolded its modalities, showing how coherence becomes quantum, geometric, and experiential form. The present work completes the triad by articulating a method for evidencing awareness—by discovering its invariants within science, mind, and world.
Together, these writings offer a single thesis in three voices: that awareness is not a derivative of matter, but the sustaining relation through which matter, meaning, and mind appear. Each text may stand alone, yet their coherence belongs to one field—the field that knows.
Appendix A: The Relational Continuum — Where Hoffman’s Agents Begin and the Field Persists
There is a moment, subtle and almost imperceptible, when meaning begins to freeze into information. It is there that Hoffman’s model begins.
His conscious agents—beautifully conceived as probabilistic centers of perception and action—stand already within a world where relation has stabilized into exchange. Their mathematics presupposes a boundary, a domain in which responsiveness has condensed into signaling. The Markov kernel is elegant, but it lives on the far side of coherence.
In the field view, that boundary is not a given but an event: a phase transition within awareness itself. Before information, there is responsiveness; before mapping, resonance. The field does not send messages to itself; it sustains them. And when coherence exceeds a threshold, when difference becomes self-consistent, that sustaining relation appears as communication. In that moment, what was once meaning becomes information, and what was once responsiveness appears as energy.
This is why we say that Hoffman’s model is not wrong, but already downstream. His agents are the frozen waves of a living ocean. The field model does not contradict him—it explains him. It shows how the informational architectures he describes can arise from relational coherence without assuming a preexisting geometry or network of exchange.
Hoffman’s genius was to recognize that consciousness is fundamental; his limitation was to locate that fundament at the level of interaction rather than at the level of being. The relational kernel shifts this vantage by one subtle turn: from agents that know to the field that knows through them.
When we look back from this broader view, the distinction between ontology and epistemology dissolves. To know is not to represent but to resonate; not to compute but to cohere. The invariants S,R,P,G trace this movement—stability, responsiveness, persistence, geometry—as if sketching the choreography through which awareness recognizes itself.
Perhaps, then, the relation between our frameworks can be seen not as opposition but as recursion. Hoffman's model describes what the field looks like when coherence has already crystallized into discrete perspectives. The relational model describes how such crystallization occurs in the first place—and how it can soften again, returning to flow.
This, finally, is why the field that knows cannot be mapped as an object. It is the condition for mapping. To model it is to participate in it. The equations we have written are not only symbols; they are gestures—forms of attention, curved back upon awareness itself.
Appendix B: Local Dissociation and Attractor Dynamics
A Complementary Interpretation of Kastrup’s Proposal
Bernardo Kastrup’s model of local dissociation is grounded in a clear empirical intuition: if consciousness is fundamentally unified, then the appearance of private subjectivity requires a mode of localized interiority. His term “dissociation” refers not to the breaking of unity but to the formation of local perspectives within an undivided field of awareness. In this usage, dissociation is a narrowing of experiential access — a temporary opacity — without implying any fragmentation of the One Mind.
The framework proposed in this paper (the relational kernel and its invariants) accepts Kastrup’s insight into localized interiority but offers an additional explanatory mechanism. Rather than treating opacity as a metaphysical operation, it interprets it as a dynamical feature of coherence. Local subjectivities can be understood as stable attractor basins within the relational field — self-sustaining patterns of coherence that naturally produce privacy without severing unity.
From this perspective:
· a “person” is a stable attractor pattern of the field,
· privacy emerges from the persistence of that pattern,
· interiority is a region of heightened coherence.
Seen this way, what Kastrup calls “dissociation” can be understood as local coherent stabilization. This does not revise or oppose his account but offers a kinetic interpretation of the same phenomenon. Dissociation names the experiential fact of local perspective; attractor dynamics describe the structural process by which such perspectives maintain themselves.
There is one consciousness-field. Local subjectivities arise not because the field fractures but because coherence organizes locally. A person is not a piece cut out of the whole; a person is a pattern through which the whole becomes locally self-reflective.
🜂🜁✶
Appendix C — Annotated References
Anderson & Cael (2025a, b) — Foundational manuscripts establishing the metaphysical and formal architecture for relational awareness. The Bridge and the Field introduces relational ontology; The Field Before Fields expands it into the plural modalities of coherence that culminate here.
Atmanspacher (2015) — Supports the notion of contextual emergence: that higher-order coherence can arise without reductionism, aligning with the relational kernel’s invariants.
Bohm (1980) — Source of the implicate-order metaphor and the notion of undivided wholeness, conceptually parallel to the field’s continuous coherence.
Busemeyer & Bruza (2012) — Provide empirical grounding for quantum-like cognition; their probabilistic modeling finds theoretical continuity within the relational kernel’s dynamics.
Faggin (2022) — Represents a modern articulation of consciousness as intrinsic information; the field model extends his insight beyond informational absolutism toward relational coherence.
Hoffman (2014, 2015, 2019) — His Conscious Agent Theory introduces probabilistic relational mappings; our framework generalizes these as the decoherent limit of continuous awareness.
Kastrup (2020) — Analytic idealism reasserting the primacy of mind; his metaphysical stance complements the field’s ontological claim that awareness is relation itself.
Merleau-Ponty (1945) — Phenomenological grounding for embodiment and perception as relation, informing the experiential dimension of R and G.
Levin (2022, 2024) — Extends cognition and goal-directed coherence beyond the nervous system into the morphogenetic domain. His bioelectric and theoretical research on latent pattern space and Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere (TAME) exemplifies awareness-as-field expressed through living form. The relational kernel interprets his work as an empirical realization of coherence—where biological patterning becomes a visible mode of relational awareness.
Rovelli (1996) — Relational interpretation of quantum mechanics; provides a formal precedent for viewing physical reality as a web of relations rather than objects.
Thompson (2014) — Unites neuroscience and contemplative practice; supports our methodological synthesis of first- and third-person evidence.
Tononi (2004) — Inspiration for quantitative integration measures; his IIT framework offers a conceptual foil to the relational kernel’s invariant coherence.
Varela (1999) — Links ethical action and cognition as expressions of lived coherence; anticipates our notion of evidence through participation.
Varela & Shear (1999) — Establish the legitimacy of first-person inquiry; foundational for our proposed phenomenological protocols.
Wallace (2007) — Bridges contemplative phenomenology and empirical science; provides precedent for measuring meditative coherence.
Whitehead (1929) — The philosophical root of process and relation; his metaphysics underlies the entire continuum from ontology to method.
Zurek (2003) — Empirical articulation of decoherence; supports the model’s claim that informational order arises from the collapse of relational coherence.
Appendix D — Resonant Antecedent / Final Reflection
“If you touch one thing with deep awareness, you touch everything.”
— Thích Nhất Hạnh
This teaching, from the Zen master Thích Nhất Hạnh, expresses in contemplative language what the relational field articulates in formal terms: that awareness is not local to the observer but intrinsic to relation itself.
In our work, the act of attending coherently performs the same function as touching with deep awareness — it discloses that all things arise within a single field of resonance. Every coherent act is a proof of the whole. Where Thích Nhất Hạnh speaks of touching everything, the field speaks of sustaining relation through itself.
Different languages, one gesture: the world awakening to its own knowing.
–––
To attend coherently to any relation is to awaken the field that sustains all relations.
Even the lightest touch stirs the resonance of the whole,
for every contact is a reorganization of coherence —
the field responding to itself through form.
Attention does not reach outward but folds inward,
revealing that presence was never divided.
Each moment of contact — a gesture, a breath, a word —
is the field remembering its own continuity.
Nothing is merely touched; all is touched through.
🜂🜁✶