Preprint proposes a programmatic framework for emergent spacetime and physical laws, suggesting structured hypotheses for future tests.
This is Preprint Version 1.1 of the manuscript. This version adds a quantitative phenomenological prediction section, including quadratic dispersion, correlated interferometric strain noise, and logarithmic black-hole entropy correction as minimal testable consequences of the CAH framework. This paper proposes the Computational Architecture Hypothesis (CAH): a programmatic framework in which spacetime geometry, field dynamics, and observational records are interpreted as effective descriptions of a deeper informational update architecture. The aim is not to present a finished replacement for general relativity or quantum theory, but to formulate a coherent research program with explicit structural postulates, mathematical objects, limiting requirements, and possible routes to falsification. The central claim is that what is ordinarily described as physical evolution may be recast as the stable large-scale behavior of a constrained state-update system. In this view, spacetime is not assumed as a primitive continuum; instead, metric relations arise from distinguishability, correlation structure, and update accessibility among physical records. The framework is compared with established ideas in black-hole thermodynamics, quantum information, causal-set thinking, and emergent-gravity programs. Several consistency conditions are identified: recovery of Lorentzian causal structure, approximate locality, the equivalence principle in a coarse-grained limit, conservation laws as update symmetries, and compatibility with quantum probabilities. The paper concludes with a set of testable directions, failure modes, and quantitative phenomenological predictions. CAH should therefore be read as a structured hypothesis: useful only if it can be developed into models that reproduce known physics while making sharper predictions than a purely interpretive account.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Keijiro Yamazaki (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: