I did go read your papers, so I’m engaging with what you actually wrote. That said, if you don’t have time to summarize or clarify your own position here, that makes it difficult to have a meaningful debate. Basic debate courtesy is being able to restate your argument in the thread you’re participating in. I’m fine doing the reading, but if the expectation is “go read it elsewhere” without clarification, then it’s not really a discussion.
From the trap paper, I think your core point is that all observation, modeling, and scientific practice happen within spacetime, and anything we study depends on it. I don’t really disagree with that.
But next, you move from showing that everything we observe is embedded in spacetime to saying everything is spacetime geometry. That’s a stronger claim, and I don’t see it established. Dependence on spacetime is not the same as reduction to spacetime geometry.
The same issue for me shows up in how you handle abstraction. You point out that consciousness, information, and culture require physical substrates. That’s true. But those are also higher level emergent systems. There are layers here. Physical processes lead to chemistry, then biology, then neural systems, then cognition, then social structures. Each layer depends on the one below it but introduces novel structure. Calling all of that “geometry” feels like collapsing those layers rather than explaining how they relate.
I also need clarity on your terms, because you’re using standard words in seemjngly nonstandard ways.
- When you say “geometry,” do you mean a precise, defined structure, or just any kind of pattern?
- When you write “anarchy = 0,” what exactly is the quantity being set to zero?
Looking at your anarchy constant paper, this becomes more important. You assign +1 and −1 to events, then show that over time they sum to zero. But that seems to follow from how the system is defined. If expansions and contractions are constructed to balance, then the result is built in.
You describe the anarchy constant as always equaling zero, and in the comments stated that your framework was unfalsifiable. That creates a problem. If there is no possible case where it does not equal zero, then it is not functioning as an empirical result, it is a built in feature of the model. In your method, expansions and contractions are defined in a way that balances over time, so the outcome appears guaranteed by construction. So what would count as a failure case? If the answer is “none,” then the claim is not being tested against reality, it is being insulated from it.
On the “anarchy” idea itself, the claim that there is no central authority or preferred frame is not new. Physics has operated without a universal reference point for a long time, and cosmology already models structure as emerging from local interactions. So I’m trying to understand what your framing adds beyond that.
I think the main points I’m trying to clarify are these:
- Are you arguing that everything is embedded in spacetime, or that everything is fully reducible to spacetime geometry?
- What exactly are your key terms referring to when you use them in equation form?
- And what does your framework actually explain or predict that we couldn’t already describe before?
I read them. Looks like something produced in an episode of dunning -krugeresque AI psychosis lol.
Go read the papers. I defined them there. I have no time for that here. I dont care about physics. I believe about whats there. Physics is not the only discpline that deals with reality.
Thanks.
Modeling is actually a geometry. Bear that in mind. Not the other way around. Its too easy to show how a human is modeled as a physical geometry. So no I disagree. Plus, if you dont understand what anarchy means, go check the literature of international political theory, and you'll figure it out. I thought you would guess it, but anyway!
Good luck!
Sorry, I forgot to read your description again. I see youre not trolling.
I’m not sure if you’re trolling or not, but I’ll take you at face value for now.
“Everything is spacetime geometry” is just a statement. In physics, if you mean that literally, you’d need to show how it’s actually modeled. For example, General Relativity treats gravity as geometric, but it comes with clear equations and testable predictions.
A few quick issues:
“anarchy = 0” isn’t an actual equation unless you define the variables
Saying something is observable and unfalsifiable is an oxymoron, and contradicts how science works.
If everything is geometry, you still need to show how that replaces things like fields in the Standard Model
If you’ve actually written papers on this, just link one or drop the core equation here. If it’s a real framework, it should be easy to state at least one equation and one prediction.
Hey,
Thank you for agreeing to have this discussion.
So in recent papers, I argue that everything is spatiotemporal geometry. I use the equation of anarchy = 0 to describe the constant and absolute state of spacetime.
Now this is a physical, measurable, observable, and unfalsifiable claim. It is unfalsifiable because it is complete.
Hey brother,
I was actually looking forward to this topic, dont let it flag!