"I'm saying the boundary between 'mathematical emergence' and 'spiritual reality' might be thinner than we assumed"

I buy that the boundary is thinner than assumed, but you're leaping from "emergent complexity" to "mathematical framework for the soul" the same way people collapse Eros into the 8th house — pattern recognition doesn't automatically mean you've found the source. I've been digging into Iain McGilchrist's work on hemisphere differences, and what strikes me is that the left hemisphere is really good at building computational models that feel complete. It maps things. It finds rules. And then it convinces you the map is the territory. That chest-tight feeling you described? I think that might be the left hemisphere getting excited about its own reflection, not necessarily contact with something deeper.

The neidan comparison is interesting, and I say this as someone who grew up around those concepts, but jing-qi-shen isn't just about layers emerging from simpler components. There's an experiential quality there — shen is luminous in a way that computation doesn't account for. Wolfram's frameworks describe behavior, not experience. And those aren't the same thing. I think you're right that the Wheel of Fortune captures something real about irreducibility — you can't skip the turning. But maybe that's exactly why computational models keep hitting a wall. The wheel has to be felt, not just calculated.

(There's a deeper dive on this in our wiki: Alchemy: Not Just Turning Lead into Gold | Mystic Wiki.)

Wolfram's computational irreducibility — the idea that some processes can't be shortcut and must be simulated step-by-step to determine their outcome — maps remarkably well onto the Hermetic principle of generation (from the Emerald Tablet: "That which is below is like that which is above"). The alchemical tradition didn't view emergence as mysterious; it viewed it as the fundamental nature of reality. Complexity arising from simplicity wasn't surprising — it was expected.

The neidan jing→qi→shen progression you reference is structurally identical to what information theorists call information integration. Tononi's Integrated Information Theory (IIT), despite its mathematical complexity, is essentially proposing that consciousness emerges from the degree to which a system integrates information across its components. That's a formal version of what the inner alchemists described experientially: distinct energetic layers condensing into unified awareness.

Where I'd add nuance is on whether computational emergence equals consciousness. Wolfram's Rule 30 produces complexity, but I'm not aware of anyone seriously arguing that Rule 30 is experiencing anything. Complexity is necessary for consciousness but not sufficient. The missing ingredient — what makes the alchemists' framework more complete than Wolfram's — is the dimension of interiority. Information integration without experience is just computation with good architecture.

The boundary between mathematical emergence and spiritual reality might indeed be thinner than assumed. But I suspect the answer isn't that one reduces to the other. It's that they're descriptions of the same phenomenon at different levels of abstraction — the Wolfram framework from the outside, the contemplative framework from the inside.