We Are Really Biophysically Entering a Systems World

Why the “object world” is collapsing — and what becomes the binding constraint when coupling thresholds fall.

1. A claim about operating conditions, not vocabulary

It is tempting to say that we are metaphorically moving from an “object world” into a “systems world” — that systems thinking is simply a better interpretive lens for describing the present. That framing is now too soft. What is changing is not merely our language, nor only our comprehension. We are entering a different set of material operating conditions: a world in which interdependencies become operationally decisive at lower levels of stress, and where the dominant causes of outcomes are increasingly system-level dynamics rather than locally-contained ones.

This is a shift in the physics of propagation across our livespace: across infrastructures, institutions, financial flows, ecological constraints, supply chains, information environments, and legitimacy structures. The world is becoming more “system-rotated” not because we have discovered complexity, but because the thresholds that previously allowed separability to function are being eroded.

2. The object world as a stable approximation

The “object world” was never a claim about ultimate reality. It was a pragmatic approximation that held under conditions of sufficient damping and slack. Domains could be interdependent and still appear separable because shocks were locally absorbable most of the time. Sector boundaries held well enough to plan around. Institutions had time to deliberate. Infrastructures had redundancy. Failures were often contained. The map was not the territory, but the map remained useful because the territory was damped.

In this sense, “objects” are what systems look like when coupling is latent, buffers are intact, and disturbances rarely exceed local absorption capacity. They are the appearance of separability produced by a world with enough slack to prevent frequent propagation.

3. Degenerative volatility: not more shocks, but less recovery

The regime we are increasingly living inside is not simply “more crisis.” It is what I mean by degenerative volatility: a condition where variance is persistent, recovery is incomplete, and the system’s capacity to restore order declines over time. The key feature is not the shock, but the shrinking ability to reset between shocks. Disturbances recur before recovery completes. Maintenance backlogs accumulate. Attention is consumed by triage. Reserves are depleted and not rebuilt.

Degenerative volatility is therefore measurable in a simple way: when the interval between shocks is shorter than the time required to recover, the system becomes structurally fatigued. In that fatigue, buffer capacity — fiscal, ecological, institutional, infrastructural, social — is spent merely to keep functioning.

4. Damping loss: why the thresholds for coupling drop

This is the keystone mechanism. Coupling is always present. The question is when coupling becomes operationally decisive. A system can be highly interdependent and still behave as if separable if it has sufficient damping: slack, redundancy, adaptive capacity, time, and functional governance.

As damping declines, the same perturbation that would previously have been absorbed locally now crosses a transmission threshold. Weak links become propagation channels. Interactions that were once background noise become first-order drivers. The coupling thresholds drop. What changes is not that “the world becomes connected,” but that latent interdependence becomes dynamically dominant at lower amplitudes of stress.

This is what makes the shift biophysical and material. It is a change in the system’s ability to absorb energy and disturbance without transmitting it across boundaries.

5. Why this is not only volatility: optimization has been thinning buffers for decades

It is important not to attribute everything to external volatility, as if the system were healthy and then “the world got weird.” A large part of the buffer loss has been endogenous. The long arc of optimization — just-in-time supply chains, platform concentration, financial integration, lean staffing, privatised redundancy, brittle procurement, degraded public maintenance, and single points of failure masquerading as efficiency — has steadily reduced slack.

Degenerative volatility then arrives as an accelerant, pushing systems that were already tuned close to their limits beyond their safe operating envelope. This matters because it means “restoring damping” is not merely a technical question; it is a political-economic reversal of an optimization paradigm that has become deeply institutionalised.

6. When coupling thresholds fall, objects dissolve into fields

As coupling becomes active at lower tipping points, the explanatory unit of the world shifts. Behaviour is no longer determined primarily by internal properties of a domain — the “energy sector,” “housing,” “health,” “security,” “insurance,” “climate.” Outcomes increasingly emerge from feedback loops, cross-domain constraint interactions, lag mismatches, correlated exposures, and propagation pathways.

Objects become less predictive not because they were wrong in principle, but because the conditions under which they were useful approximations no longer hold. The world begins to behave more like a relational field: a set of interacting dynamics whose collective behaviour is not reducible to local explanations. In such a regime, policy categories and sectoral portfolios fail not because they lack intelligence, but because their boundaries no longer coincide with causal structure.

7. Large-scale system dynamics stop being exceptional

In an object world, cascades were “crises,” treated as deviations from normality. In a coupled regime, cascades become a normal mode of operation because disturbances more readily propagate, correlations intensify under stress, and recovery is incomplete. The system spends more time in transition dynamics: near-threshold behaviour, rapid contagion, abrupt repricing, phase-shift-like regime changes, and compound events where multiple domains fail together.

This is one reason the present feels like a continuous series of “unrelated” events that nonetheless seem to rhyme. The rhyme is the coupling: not identical causes, but shared propagation conditions.

8. The signatures of the coupled regime

If this thesis is real, it should be visible in observable patterns. We should expect to see more frequent compound events, more “near misses,” and more systemic correlation during stress. We should see insurance markets withdrawing or repricing sharply as they register correlation and tail risk. We should see supply shocks turning into political shocks turning into financial shocks with shorter delays. We should see maintenance backlogs and institutional attention scarcity become persistent features rather than episodic failures. We should see more situations where local interventions are overwhelmed because the dominant drivers are elsewhere in the system.

These are not proofs. They are signatures: symptoms consistent with falling coupling thresholds and diminished damping capacity.

9. What becomes the binding constraint: response-time plus legitimacy plus commitment

When coupling thresholds fall, the time between local anomaly and system-level consequence compresses. This makes response-time a binding constraint, but not in the simple sense of “moving faster.” The deeper constraint is the ability to coordinate action across fragmented authority.

Even when sensing exists, response fails when authorization fails: who can commit whom, on what terms, with what legitimacy, and under what verification? In a world of situational sovereignties — cities, regulators, platforms, insurers, firms, supply chains, communities — the scarce capability is not analysis in isolation, but the ability to produce credible shared interpretation and to bind commitments across actors quickly enough to act before option-space collapses.

So the limiting factor becomes an integrated triad: response-time, legitimacy production, and commitment capacity. In a coupled regime, delays are not neutral. They become cascade multipliers.

10. The practical implication: new primitive units of strategy

If we are biophysically entering a systems world, the primary unit of strategy shifts. It is no longer adequate to optimise isolated components or to allocate capital as if domain separability still holds. The core question becomes whether we can build the infrastructures that allow collective action under coupling: early sensing, credible interpretation, coordination surfaces, commitment protocols, and adaptive allocation.

This reframes what counts as “investable” and what counts as “governance.” Decisioning capacity becomes infrastructure. Legitimacy becomes a production function. Commitment becomes an engineered capability rather than an assumed social residue. The real asset is the capacity to keep option-space open by preventing cascades or by shaping cascades into adaptive reconfiguration rather than uncontrolled failure.

11. What would falsify this?

This is not a metaphysical claim that “everything is connected.” It is a claim about thresholds, damping, and propagation. The thesis would weaken if buffers were rebuilt faster than shocks recur; if damping capacity increased across institutions and infrastructures; if cross-domain correlations in stress events decreased; if cascades became less frequent rather than more normal; and if sectoral boundaries regained predictive power because local absorption once again contained disturbances.

If those things happen, we would be moving back toward an object-world approximation. The point is to name the test: coupling is not destiny; it is conditional on damping.

12. A closing proposition

We are not merely noticing systems more clearly. We are living through a decline in damping capacity that makes interdependence operational at lower perturbation levels. As degenerative volatility compounds — in a world already thinned by optimization — coupling thresholds fall, cascades become normal, and the decisive constraint becomes our ability to coordinate legitimate commitments fast enough to act before irreversibility closes the future.

The object world was an experience made possible by buffers. We are living through the depletion of those buffers. The systems world is not a metaphor. It is the regime we are now inside — and it is already governing outcomes.