SCQG paper 19 of 28. Paper 19 develops the microscopic quantum dynamics of the Semantic Commitment / Quantum Gravity framework. It starts with finite physical carriers at the Planck regulator scale. A cell carries registrations, records or comparison data only where the corresponding systems and operations are present. A distinction becomes locally available through the forward physical action that makes it usable. Allowed local changes and their reverse partners define a self-adjoint Hamiltonian. This generator determines quantum evolution, exact sums of transition amplitudes and causal response. The microscopic clock λ is compared with metric time through an explicitly defined positive clock map. Semantic time orders the interactions through which distinctions become usable, compared or maintained. A six-state loop provides an explicit calculation of screen occupation, payload delivery and reciprocal response. Interacting finite chains show how those results change when cells exchange quantum states. The charged construction retains all 8,160 fermionic modes of its stated regulator, together with the links and boundary systems needed to enforce local Gauss constraints. Complete packet exchanges retain the transferred states, correlations and compensating flux. The paper derives exact reduced dynamics with memory and states the additional conditions for quantum channels, memoryless evolution and classical jumps. It constructs positive Euclidean reflection forms from which Hamiltonian dynamics can be recovered, and proves that local observables have well-defined limits as the support grows under the stated locality bounds. Explicit error bounds quantify the comparison between different resolutions. The final sections specify the further action, symmetry, positivity and convergence conditions needed for a relativistic continuum realization and its use by the companion papers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Betzer (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: