The Entropic Governance Framework (EGF) is proposed as a pre-standard, conceptual governance framework grounded in thermodynamic constraints, particularly entropy and irreversibility. EGF reframes sustainability, governance, and long-term decision-making by treating entropy growth and irreversible loss of future optionality as non-negotiable governing constraints, rather than secondary considerations mediated solely through proxy indicators such as emissions, efficiency, or economic output.
This research agenda defines:
The intent is not to defend EGF, but to expose it to disciplined scrutiny.
EGF makes several strong claims that distinguish it from prevailing governance and sustainability frameworks. These claims must be treated as hypotheses, not axioms.
EGF asserts that:
Testable implication:
Governance systems optimised against proxy metrics may appear sustainable in the short term while accumulating irreversible systemic degradation
detectable through entropy-informed or irreversibility-aware analysis.
EGF defines sustainability not as a static state or target, but as:
Testable implication:
Systems classified as “sustainable” under current frameworks may show divergent long-term viability when evaluated using entropy-informed system boundaries.
Clarification on irreversibility:
EGF does not treat irreversibility as inherently undesirable. Irreversible commitments may either reduce or expand future option space. Accordingly,
research must explicitly distinguish between degenerative irreversibility (which permanently forecloses future adaptability) and
generative irreversibility (which enables new domains of action, learning, or resilience). A key test of EGF is whether it can support
this distinction without inducing governance paralysis.
EGF accepts values, ethics, and preferences as legitimate weighting functions within governance decisions, but rejects the assumption that they can override thermodynamic limits.
Testable implication:
Governance decisions prioritising normative objectives that conflict with entropic constraints will tend to generate deferred instability, collapse, or loss of
future optionality, even if short-term goals are achieved.
Objective:
Evaluate whether entropy-informed interpretations offer superior explanatory power for historical governance failures or collapses.
Candidate domains:
Research question:
Do irreversibility-aware interpretations explain failure modes not captured by conventional sustainability or risk frameworks?
Potential falsifier:
If proxy-based models consistently explain long-term outcomes as well as or better than entropy-informed analyses, EGF’s explanatory advantage is weakened.
Objective:
Compare decisions evaluated under:
Methodological approaches:
Research question:
Does introducing entropy as a governing constraint materially change decision rankings or outcomes?
Potential falsifier:
If entropy constraints rarely alter decisions or outcomes in meaningful ways, EGF’s practical relevance is limited.
Objective:
Test whether entropy-bounded governance improves system viability over extended timescales.
Approach:
Research question:
Do governance regimes that explicitly manage irreversibility preserve optionality and function longer than those that do not?
Potential falsifier:
If irreversibility-aware governance produces no statistically significant difference in long-horizon resilience or adaptability, EGF’s core premise is challenged.
EGF relies on system boundary choices to assess entropy flows.
Critical question:
Are entropy-informed conclusions overly sensitive to boundary selection?
Falsification condition:
If reasonable boundary variations produce contradictory or unstable governance conclusions, EGF risks becoming indeterminate or non-operational.
EGF claims applicability across:
Research question:
Does irreversibility-aware reasoning scale coherently across levels?
Falsification condition:
If entropy constraints produce inconsistent or incompatible governance conclusions across scales, EGF’s scope and coherence weaken.
EGF explicitly separates:
Research question:
Can EGF remain analytically clear while still informing value-laden decisions?
Falsification condition:
If EGF inevitably embeds hidden normative commitments while claiming neutrality, its analytical value is undermined.
Structured adversarial critique exercises, including AI-assisted stress testing, may be used to surface ambiguity, boundary fragility, and misinterpretation risks. Such methods should be treated as preparatory tools, not as substitutes for human expert review or empirical validation.
EGF should be considered invalid or severely limited if any of the following are demonstrated:
EGF is intentionally incomplete. Productive extensions include:
All extensions should be versioned, documented, and citable to preserve conceptual integrity.
EGF–W1 and this research agenda are published to:
Critique, replication attempts, and falsification efforts are welcomed and encouraged. Substantive revisions will be issued as new, versioned documents to preserve citation stability and intellectual transparency.
The Entropic Governance Framework does not claim certainty.
It claims that some constraints are not negotiable, and that governance which ignores them merely postpones reckoning.
Whether EGF proves correct, incomplete, or wrong is a matter for disciplined inquiry — not belief.