Elastic Spacetime with Scale-Dependent Coupling (ESSC) v14 formalizes ESSC as a boundary diagnostic framework for foundational physics.This version does not introduce new physical laws, dynamical equations, entities, or predictive mechanisms. Instead, it systematizes how and why otherwise coherent theories fail when extended beyond their structurally admissible domains. ESSC v14 fixes four minimal boundary notions—measurement as an irreversible terminal operation, π as the termination boundary where translation equivalence fails, the arrow of time as a post-termination structural asymmetry, and Now as the leading edge of irreversibly fixed history. These notions are treated strictly as boundary markers, not as dynamical variables or emergent quantities. Building on these definitions, ESSC v14 introduces a canonical list of prohibited extensions (P1–P11). Each prohibited extension corresponds to a specific class of structural violation, such as demanding unique outcomes from reversible dynamics, internalizing termination into parameters or initial conditions, erasing boundaries via limiting procedures, or imposing global closure on non-terminating descriptions. Applied uniformly to major quantum interpretations, classical mechanics, and general relativity, this diagnostic shows that many long-standing foundational difficulties arise not from incorrect theories, but from inadmissible extension demands. The framework remains neutral with respect to competing interpretations and does not rank them by correctness or completeness. It evaluates only whether a given explanatory demand is structurally compatible with the role assigned to a theory. ESSC v14 is intended as a pre-theoretical diagnostic instrument. Its role is to clarify where theoretical descriptions must stop in order to remain coherent, prior to any attempt at unification, modification, or deeper dynamical explanation. Progress, on this account, is achieved not by eliminating boundaries, but by identifying and respecting them.
umimoto (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: