Theoretical framework demonstrates non-factorizable joint continuation from relational memory, indicating how bound structural delay might generate apparent gravitational attraction.
This research note connects the forbidden-continuation and structural-delay-bias research paths within Field-Network Theory (FNT) and identifies the formal step required between them. The starting point is that realised structural memory Dβ constrains open possibility structure π¬β: continuation must preserve realised distinction while remaining structurally open. The note extends this framework to realised relations between manifested structures. If a realised relation Rβ(Mβ,Mβ) belongs to Dβ, joint continuation may reconstruct that relation, but cannot be defined as ontologically independent of it without removing realised relational memory from the conditions of continuation. This is formulated as the Relational Memory Non-Factorization Lemma. The lemma establishes relationally constrained joint continuation, but does not determine its direction. Approach, preservation, separation, and other relational changes remain open possibilities. The gravitational problem therefore appears only at the next stage: whether bound structural delay, provisionally interpreted as mass, breaks this relational symmetry so that approaching continuations become structurally dominant over separating continuations. The resulting research path is: relational memory β non-factorizable joint continuation β bound structural delay β directional asymmetry β apparent gravitation No gravitational force, field, directional selector, or quantitative gravitational law is introduced. The purpose of the note is to separate the potentially derivable relational-memory result from the still-open problem of gravitational direction and to define a formal research program connecting them. https://sites.google.com/view/field-network-theory
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Taponen-Synoidi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: