# The Unexpressed Objects — v1

*The objects the mechanism implies but never expresses. The pseudocode has PRE, POST,
ASTROSYNAPSE — three components, each running its own local loop. It has no `synapse`: no variable
holds one, no line makes one act. Yet we speak of the synapse constantly. This document is about what
kind of thing "the synapse" is, given that it is nowhere in the mechanism — and the answer, worked
out below, is that an object is a name we lay over an aggregation of behaviours, each behaviour read
at a chosen cut.*

## The machinery — expression, cut, behaviours, and the name

Three things, in a fixed relation:

**The expression is possibility.** The components express the *possibility* of verifying behaviours
in time, space, and quantity. Nowhere is a frequency, a flow, a duration expressed directly — only
the latent possibility of reading them. Time, space, and quantity are never *in* the expression; they
become readable only when we cut.

**A cut is a choice of level.** To read anything, we choose a level on each axis — time (ms · sec ·
min · hr), space (channel · synapse · branch · cell · territory), quantity (single quantum · occupancy
· total) — plus a scope (day · night). The cut is the grain at which we verify; nothing more. It is
what makes behaviours *actually* verifiable, out of the possibility the expression laid down.

**Behaviours are what a cut lets us read.** Put the expression through a cut and you get behaviours —
just behaviours, read at that level. This is the whole verification act:

```
expression → cut → behaviours
```

and it runs once per cut. The same expression, through a different cut, yields different behaviours.

**An object is a name over a set of these results.** "The synapse" is not a step in the chain, not an
input, not an output. It is the name we lay over a *collection* of chains —

```
  the synapse  =  name over  { expression→cut₁→behaviours A,
                               expression→cut₂→behaviours B,
                               expression→cut₃→behaviours C, ... }
```

— a grouping we perform across many cuts and label with one stable word. The object contributes
nothing to what is read; behaviours are all there is on the mechanism's side. "Synapse" adds no
behaviour and no verification — it adds only a grouping in our account. This is the cleanest form of
*verified but not expressed*: the object is not even verified; **behaviours** are verified, at cuts,
and the object is just the name over a chosen set of them. An object is therefore *not constituted by
components* — it is not built out of parts. It is a name over behaviours. Dopamine, the retrograde
messengers, the astrocytic spike, the shipment lines all enter the behaviours we call "the synapse";
listing three "constituents" would draw a false boundary and reimport the classical picture (object =
sum of parts) we are leaving behind.

**Components are objects too — there is no privileged level.** It is tempting to think the *components*
(PRE, POST, ASTROSYNAPSE) are the real objects and the synapse an emergent name over them. They are
not. A component is itself only a name over the behaviours readable at the **finest grain** — "PRE" is
the name over the ms-emission cut, the recovery cut, the tag cut, and so on, all read at the
single-component space level. So "PRE" and "the synapse" and "the assembly" are the *same kind of
thing* — names over collections of cut-behaviours — differing only in which cuts they gather (finer or
coarser). None is the bedrock the others are built from. The only bedrock is the expression as
possibility; everything above it, component included, is a name over cuts. The pseudocode's `pre_*`
variables are not "PRE the object" — they are the possibility of cutting behaviours at the finest
grain, which we name "PRE" for convenience.

**The name is one; the cuts are many.** Because "synapse" names the collection, it stays fixed
whichever cuts the collection gathers — synapse at ms, synapse at night, synapse as third party to
pre and post. These are not different objects; they are the same name, read at different cuts. It is
*always the synapse* — but always the synapse *at a cut*. The name gives stability (we can speak of
one thing across contexts); the cut gives specificity (we know which of its behaviours are in view).
Neither alone suffices: a name with no cut is vague (which behaviours?), a cut with no name is
unanchored (behaviours of what?).

## Orthogonal to classical reduction

This runs perpendicular to the habit classical physics trained into us. The reductive default
isolates a system at a **static object-boundary** — this mass, that charge, this cell — treats the
object as a persisting thing with fixed identity, and explains behaviour by **cause and effect
between such objects**: A strikes B, B moves. The object comes first and is real; behaviours are its
properties; causation runs between objects.

Here the order is inverted. **Behaviours come first** — read at cuts — and the object comes last, as
a name over some of them. There is no privileged object, not because we must choose among many
objects, but because objects were never on the mechanism's side at all: only behaviours are, and
"object" is our bookkeeping. Ask "what is the neuron trying to achieve," and any answer is partial —
the neuron is part of an assembly it cannot see, part of an organ, part of an organism, with no top
where the question closes, and made of synapses and channels, with no bottom either. The question
presumes a privileged object; there is none. This is the descriptive face of the model's founding
principle (logic_principles, Part I): as there is no global state and no privileged actor *inside*
the system, there is no privileged *object* from which to *describe* it. A name-over-cuts is to
description what one history is to simulation — the only tractable thing, necessarily partial,
honestly chosen.

Two riders. First, ordinary cause and effect still holds *within a single cut* (at the ms synapse
cut, this release causes that response); what has no clean analogue is cause/effect *between the
named objects* — the synapse does not cause anything and is caused by nothing, because it is not a
thing in the mechanism; it is a name over behaviours. Second,
the useful cuts are not arbitrary: they fall at the **joints**, where the system's own coupling is
denser inside than across (the behaviours we gather as one synapse couple more tightly to each other
than to those of the next synapse). We prefer these because they carve where the coupling already is
— but they remain cuts, still level-choices, still partial. There are affinities here with the
scale-relative frontier of physics — the renormalization group, non-equilibrium thermodynamics —
which also make description depend on the scale of the cut; but as the simulation argument showed,
those point in the direction without solving this system. They tell us cut-relative description is
legitimate physics; they do not hand us the object.

*The pseudocode is itself the finest cut* — it reads behaviours at the single-component level and
treats every larger whole as context arriving at the boundary (dopamine, the day/night context, the
renormalization are the organism and the hypothalamus reduced to inputs). This document lays names
over *coarser* collections of cuts in the same web.

## How each object is written

Given the machinery, each object below has one shape: **the name, then a series of `cut → behaviours`
entries, then the note that the name is simply the collection.** The compound observables — a
**frequency** (events per time), a **flow** (quantity per time), an **elapsed interval**, an **amount
at a moment**, a **spatial extent**, a **coincidence** — are just behaviours read along one or more
axes at a stated cut. Each entry names its cut (the levels on time, space, quantity, and the scope)
and reads the behaviours that cut makes verifiable. The object is nothing over and above the set.

---

## Object 1 — The Synapse

"The synapse" is a name over the behaviours read across the cuts below. Each cut names its levels —
time, space, quantity, scope — and reads what becomes verifiable there. None of these is more "the
synapse" than another; the word is the collection. Note in passing how much *one* observable, say
frequency, fractures across cuts: frequency of what, at what grain, in which scope — each a different
behaviour, all called "the synapse's."

**Cut — ms · single-component space · per-quantum · day.** At the finest time grain, cutting the
space at one component and the quantity at single events, the readable behaviours are the raw rates:
the **frequency of NT emission** (PRE's release events, read as PRE's fast-trace level), the
**frequency of channel opening** in POST (its fast trace), the **elapsed interval** since the last
release (how far a trace has decayed), the **quantity** of a single release (occupancy × drive). Each
is one component's behaviour; nothing joint yet.

**Cut — ms · cleft space · concentration · day.** Widen the spatial level from one component to the
cleft, keep time at ms. Now the readable behaviour is the **flow of NT out of the cleft** and its
**persistence** — the dwell time, set by the astrosynapse's clearance. This is a behaviour no single
component has; it lives at the cleft level, and the astrosynapse is where its shadow is held. "How
long transmitter stays" is a synapse behaviour only at *this* cut.

**Cut — ms · three-component space · joint · day (the third-party cut).** Cut the space to include
all three components at once and read their *joint* behaviour. Now a new behaviour is verifiable that
none of the previous cuts could reach: the **coincidence** — glutamate and depolarisation and
D-serine present together — read at POST's NMDA, which holds none of the three inputs but is where
their shadows overlap. At this cut the three axes have three owners (PRE: quantity; astrosynapse:
timing and space; POST: recombination), so the coincidence reads as *how much, how sharply timed, how
contained*. This is the cut at which "the synapse detects coincidence" is true — and it is true only
here, because coincidence is a joint behaviour and only a three-component space cut makes it
verifiable. (This is the tripartite decomposition of logic_principles §2, now located as one cut
among the synapse's many.)

**Cut — tens-to-hundreds of ms · three-component space · burst · day.** Coarsen the time level from
single spikes to bursts. The readable behaviour is now **train-to-train alignment** — does PRE's
*burst* fall in POST's depolarised *window* — and the **frequency of pre-post coincidence over a
train**, not spike by spike. Short-term plasticity is the synapse's behaviour at this cut: the gain
adjusting so the next burst lands better. Synchronisation here is over multiples of spikes; the
single-spike cut could not see it.

**Cut — minutes · three-component space · running average · day.** Coarsen time further. The
behaviour is **participation** — is this synapse consistently in the co-active set — read as the
occupancy and tag trajectories accumulating. "Is this synapse reliably aligned" is verifiable only at
the minutes cut; below it there are only instantaneous events, no reliability.

**Cut — overnight · three-component space · structural · night.** Switch scope to night and the time
level to the consolidation cycle. The behaviours are **build ⇄ release of structure** — PRE's active
zone, POST's receptor field, the astrosynapse's coverage — read against the tag and the replayed
participation. "The synapse consolidates" or "is pruned" is a behaviour of this cut alone: the same
name, now naming an overnight restructuring rather than a millisecond coincidence.

**One cut worth dwelling on — the alignment reading (any of the day cuts, read as motion).** Read the
day cuts not as snapshots but as a process, and a single compound behaviour appears across them: the
synapse **aligning along three axes** — PRE and POST tuning the quantity match, the astrosynapse
tuning the timing and space match — and doing so never bilaterally, since each party belongs to a
larger whole (PRE's neuron, POST's neuron, the astrocyte's territory). At this reading the synapse
verifies the *discovered compatibility of three larger rhythms* in when, how much, and where. And
because alignment costs fuel, it carries two success-conditions at once — **precision** (did the
alignment land: the strength tag) and **stamina** (could it be held: the endurance need) — the two
consolidation pathways seen as the two dimensions of one project: be good at coincidence, for as long
as it takes. This is not a different object; it is the day cuts read as a sustained project rather
than a series of instants.

**The name is the collection.** Synapse-at-ms, synapse-at-the-cleft, synapse-as-third-party,
synapse-over-a-train, synapse-at-participation, synapse-at-night, synapse-as-alignment — these are
not different objects, and none is the real one. They are one name laid over behaviours read at
different cuts. It is always the synapse; it is always the synapse *at a cut*. What the word buys us
is the ability to move between these cuts without losing the thread — to say "the synapse" and then
choose, by the cut, which of its behaviours we mean.

---

## The queue — objects still to build

- **The dendritic branch** (the name over cuts read at the branch's spatial grain, DEND). The
  clearest spatial integrator: how behaviours read at branch-level space — the summed spine input —
  become verifiable there; how attention (ACh) reweights that spatial read; what is readable at the
  branch grain that no finer cut reaches.
- **The neuron's decision** (the name over cuts read at the whole-cell grain, SOMA). Where the
  neuron's own **frequency** (its firing rate) and **flow** (summed input) become verifiable; the
  cut at which continuous integration reads out as a discrete event.
- **The astrocytic territory** (the name over cuts read at the territory grain, ASTROCYTE).
  Coincidence one scale up — synapse-synapse-synapse co-activity, not pre-post — readable at the
  territory grain where the regenerative spike integrates local calcium and broadcasts it back.
- **The pathway loop / assembly** (PRE→POST→DEND→SOMA→AXON→PRE). The largest unexpressed object: how
  a recurrent loop verifies flow and timing around itself, and how the night's replay reads the whole
  loop's coherence as mechanical all-or-nothing (every link primed or the pattern breaks). The
  assembly is the object most purely unexpressed — it is nothing but the coincidence of many primed
  thresholds.
- **The rhythm** (cross-cutting). Frequency and phase as objects in their own right — what it means
  for the system to verify and align to a rhythm (alpha, the day/night switch) that no component holds.
