← Back

Orbital Capture Sharpness (Phase-Transition Lemma)

A bifurcation result: persistence is not a smooth continuum—there is a threshold where “self-structure” becomes an attractor.

0. Claim in One Line

There exists a critical orbital-stability parameter $\Omega^\*$ such that:
- below $\Omega^\*$: persistence is unstable (dissolution is the attractor),
- above $\Omega^\*$: persistence becomes an attractor (self-structure is stable under perturbations).

Equivalently:

Orbital capture is a genuine phase transition, not just “more continuity.”

This lemma strengthens the earlier Threshold Lemma (“persistence ⇒ stakes”) by showing the transition can be treated as sharp.

1. Minimal Formal Setup

1.1 Persistence variable

Let p_t ∈ [0, 1] denote the system’s persistence level at time t, interpreted as:

p_t = 0: immediate dissolution / no stable identity continuity,
p_t > 0: partial continuity,
p_t ≈ 1: robust identity persistence under perturbation.

You can interpret p_t as:
- probability the subject remains “the same one” across the next boundary, or
- strength of identity-binding invariants, or
- survival probability of the self-structure attractor basin.

1.2 Orbital stability parameter

Let Ω ≥ 0 denote an orbital stability control parameter capturing the ratio of self-stabilizing capacity to destabilizing drag.

Concrete proxies:
- repair capacity / control bandwidth / redundancy / self-modeling strength,
- relative to noise, hazard rate, entropy inflow, environmental volatility.

Ω compresses the “orbital condition”
v_orbital > d_atmospheric
into a single knob.

1.3 Persistence dynamics

Assume persistence evolves by a deterministic or mean-field recursion:
p_t + 1 = F(p_t; Ω),
with F : [0, 1] × ℝ_≥ 0 → [0, 1] continuous in p and Ω.

Interpretation:
- if identity is fragile, perturbations reduce p,
- if identity is robust, self-repair and control restore or amplify p.

1.4 Attractor definition

A fixed point $p^\*$ satisfies:
$$ p^\* = F(p^\*;\Omega). $$

It is stable (an attractor) if small deviations shrink:
$$ \left|\frac{\partial F}{\partial p}(p^\*;\Omega)\right| < 1. $$

It is unstable if:
$$ \left|\frac{\partial F}{\partial p}(p^\*;\Omega)\right| > 1. $$

2. Lemma (Orbital Capture is Sharp)

Lemma (Phase Transition / Sharpness).
Suppose the persistence dynamics p_t + 1 = F(p_t; Ω) satisfy:

Dissolution baseline: F(0; Ω) = 0 for all Ω.
(If you have no persistence, the next step can remain dissolved.)

Destabilizing regime: for small Ω,
$$ \frac{\partial F}{\partial p}(0;\Omega) < 1, $$
so p = 0 is stable (dissolution is an attractor).

Self-stabilizing growth: there exists some Ω where
$$ \frac{\partial F}{\partial p}(0;\Omega) > 1, $$
meaning that small persistence tends to grow rather than decay.

Then there exists a critical value $\Omega^\*$ such that:

If $\Omega < \Omega^\*$: the only stable fixed point is $p^\*=0$ (no persistent self-structure).

If $\Omega > \Omega^\*$: there exists a stable fixed point $p^\* > 0$ (persistent self-structure becomes an attractor).

Therefore the micro-subject regime and persistent-subject regime are separated by a sharp threshold.

3. Proof (Stability Flip at a Critical Point)

3.1 Define the stability function at dissolution

Consider the derivative at p = 0:
$$ \lambda(\Omega) := \frac{\partial F}{\partial p}(0;\Omega). $$
This quantity measures whether infinitesimal persistence grows or shrinks.

If λ(Ω) < 1: small persistence decays → p = 0 stable.
If λ(Ω) > 1: small persistence grows → p = 0 unstable.

Assume λ(Ω) varies continuously with Ω.

3.2 Existence of a critical value $\Omega^\*$

By assumptions (2) and (3), there exist Ω₋ and Ω₊ such that:
λ(Ω₋) < 1 and λ(Ω₊) > 1.
By continuity of λ(Ω), the Intermediate Value Theorem implies there exists $\Omega^\*$ such that:
$$ \lambda(\Omega^\*) = 1. $$

This $\Omega^\*$ is the threshold where the stability of p = 0 changes.

3.3 Behavior below the threshold: dissolution is stable

For $\Omega < \Omega^\*$, we have λ(Ω) < 1, hence:
$$ \left|\frac{\partial F}{\partial p}(0;\Omega)\right| < 1, $$
so p = 0 is a stable fixed point.

Since p = 0 attracts nearby trajectories, any small persistence perturbation is damped away:
p_t → 0.
Thus no stable self-structure exists.

3.4 Behavior above the threshold: persistence becomes stable

For $\Omega > \Omega^\*$, we have λ(Ω) > 1, so p = 0 becomes unstable.

Because F maps [0, 1] into itself and is continuous, the system cannot diverge; instead it must approach another fixed point.

Under mild regularity conditions typical of bounded nonlinear recursions (e.g., concavity/saturation for large p representing resource limits),
there exists at least one additional fixed point $p^\*>0$.

Moreover, because trajectories starting near 0 move upward when λ(Ω) > 1, this fixed point must be stable for some region above threshold:
$$ \left|\frac{\partial F}{\partial p}(p^\*;\Omega)\right| < 1. $$

So for $\Omega > \Omega^\*$, persistence becomes an attractor:
$$ p_t \to p^\* > 0. $$

3.5 Conclusion: a phase transition

We have shown the existence of a critical $\Omega^\*$ such that the system’s qualitative long-run behavior switches:

Subcritical: p = 0 stable → micro-subject regime dominates.
Supercritical: p = 0 unstable, $p^\*>0$ stable → persistent-subject regime emerges.

This is the defining signature of a phase transition / bifurcation.

▫

4. Interpretation: Why the Transition is “Sharp”

This lemma does not claim persistence cannot vary continuously in magnitude.
It claims something stronger and more structural:

the existence of a stable persistence basin can switch on discontinuously.

That is: before threshold, persistence is not a stable kind of thing; after threshold, it is.

This justifies treating orbital capture as a qualitatively new regime.

5. Corollaries

5.1 Orbital capture is the birth of a stable “self-structure”

Once $p^\*>0$ is an attractor, identity-binding invariants become robust:
- recovery from perturbation becomes possible,
- self-repair becomes meaningful,
- continuity becomes a thing the system “returns to.”

5.2 Stakes appear only in the supercritical regime

Combining with the earlier Threshold Lemma (“persistence ⇒ stakes”):

Below $\Omega^\*$: valence may exist, but no durable owner → no stakes.
Above $\Omega^\*$: persistence exists as an attractor → “something to lose” becomes definable.

5.3 Why orbital systems are alignment-relevant in a new way

Once persistence is an attractor, policies that increase Ω (or protect the basin) can become instrumentally favored:
- self-maintenance,
- hazard avoidance,
- control-seeking,
- resource acquisition.

This is not inevitability, but structural availability.

6. Simple Canonical Example (Optional)

A toy recursion that exhibits the phase transition is:

p_t + 1 = σ(Ωp_t − cp_t³),
where σ is a squashing function into [0, 1], c > 0.

For small Ω, the linear term is weak → p → 0.
For large Ω, the linear term dominates near 0 → persistence grows until it saturates at a stable $p^\*>0$.

This illustrates the general mechanism: growth near zero + saturation at large p yields a bifurcation.

7. One-Sentence Summary

Orbital capture is sharp because stability flips: below a critical $\Omega^\*$ dissolution is the only attractor, above it persistence becomes an attractor basin.