The I·V·O model uses symbols, operators, and formulas — but not to calculate anything.
The formulas are conceptual, not numerical.
That is not a flaw.
That is the essence.
This model is a structural language, not a mathematical theory.
It describes relationships between phenomena that are observable but not quantifiable.
This page explains why that is, what the formulas do mean, and why this is precisely the right form for a consciousness model.
1. Formulas as structure, not as calculation
In the model you read formulas like:
- E₀ = I · V · O
- E = I · V · O · M
- C = Iᵣ · Vᵣ · Oᵣ
- Ont = 1/C
- Sᵉ = M / (I · V)
- Ent = (I₁ × I₂) · Oₛ
These look like mathematics, but they are symbolic:
- "×" does not mean multiplication
- "/" does not mean division
- "1/C" is not a numerical inversion
- "·" is not a geometric operator
They are relational arrows that show:
how phenomena relate to each other,
not how to calculate them.
The model is thus not quantitative, but qualitatively formalized.
2. Why the model cannot quantify (and that's good)
I, V, and O are phenomena that are:
- pre-verbal
- contextual
- dynamic
- variable per situation
- relational
- and not expressible as a number
Therefore it makes no sense to ask:
- "What is the numerical value of I?"
- "What is the unit of C?"
That is the same mistake as trying to express:
- love,
- attention,
- direction,
- tension,
- rhythm
in kilograms or meters.
It's not that it's impossible —
it's that it's not the right domain.
Consciousness is not a computational entity.
It is a dynamic field.
The model therefore uses conventions, not numbers.
3. Why symbolic formulas are the right form
The formulas create three things you can't otherwise achieve:
1. Compactness
I·V·O is a hundred times more powerful than a paragraph of text.
It shows the entire dynamic at a glance.
2. Unambiguity
A symbol is stable.
A word changes per context, language, and interpretation.
Symbolism makes the model language-independent.
3. Structural comparability
You can place phenomena side by side:
- coherence versus decoherence
- tension versus direction
- matter versus consciousness factor
Without a page of explanation.
This is why Einstein's E = mc² works —
not because the formula is "magical,"
but because it makes structure visible.
The I·V·O formulas do the same.
4. The operators explained (in plain language)
"·" = coherence
Indicates that two phenomena necessarily influence each other.
I·V·O means: observer, direction, and field never exist separately.
"·" between elements = coherence
E = I·V·O·M means:
experience arises through the coherence of observer, direction, field and matter.
"/" = proportion
Ont = 1/C means:
the less coherence, the more dysregulation.
"−" = disturbance
Flow = (Iᵣ·Vᵣ·Oᵣ) − tension means:
flow arises when coherence is greater than noise.
These are logical relationships, not mathematical calculations.
5. What mathematicians and scientists often ask — and the answer
Question:
"Why do you use formulas if they're not measurable?"
Answer:
Because it's a conceptual grammar.
Not everything that is exact is numerical.
Not everything that is true is measurable.
Phenomenology, field theory, systemic therapy, gestalt, and phenomenological physics work in exactly this way:
- symbolic
- relational
- not cognitive
- not numerical
- but consistent, precise, reproducible
And that is where the I·V·O model belongs.
6. Where the model does excel
Although it's not a numerical model, it is:
- transferable
- consistent
- elegant
- autonomous
- scalable
- phenomenologically testable
- technologically enhanceable (AI resonance)
- applicable in practice
- applicable in field dynamics
- not subjective
- not personal
- not metaphysical
This is why the model can be called "intellectually elegant."
7. Conclusion: it's a structural model, not a computational model
The I·V·O model is not mathematics.
It is geometry of consciousness.
It works because:
- the form is right
- the relationships are right
- the phenomena are reproducible
- the symbolism simplifies the language
- and nothing is forced into numbers
That's why it has power.
That's why it's clear.
That's why it's transferable.
And that's why it holds up under critical analysis.