PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 20, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Entanglement-Algebraic Spacetime Ontological Completion: Physics Without Representational Primitives

View Full Paper
MLMichael E. Labhard

Key Points

  • This work addresses why any physical representation is possible despite constraints in existing frameworks.
  • Reconstructed classical mechanics, general relativity, and quantum field theories as stable representations.
  • Identified minimal non-representational constraints necessary for all physical descriptions.
  • Explored the limits of representational adequacy in physics.
  • Demonstrated that representational success is insufficient for ontological adequacy.
  • Identified constraints essential for manifestation and representation, such as admissibility and causality.
  • Showed that interpretations of physics stem from representational necessities rather than discovering fundamental constituents.

Abstract

This paper is archived as a speculative research work. The preceding manuscripts demonstrated that classical mechanics, general relativity, and quantumeld theory can each be reconstructed as stable interface-level representations of a single scalar eld,without assuming spacetime, dynamics, particles, or energy as fundamental primitives. This nalpaper completes that program by addressing the question such reconstructions leave unresolved:why any physical representation is possible at all. We show that representational success alone isinsucient for ontological adequacy, and we identify the minimal non-representational constraintsthat underwrite all physical descriptions. These constraintsalgebraic possibility, admissibility,persistence, and causalitydo not constitute additional physical layers or entities. Rather, theyspecify the conditions under which manifestation and representation can occur. Physics is therebyreinterpreted as the study of interface-stable compressions of admissibility, and its major theoreticalframeworks are shown to arise as xed points of representational necessity rather than as discoveriesof fundamental constituents. The resulting framework explains both the eectiveness and the limitsof physical theory while preserving the empirical discipline of physics. Ontology is not extendedbeyond physics; it begins precisely where representation necessarily fails.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Michael E. Labhard (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/696f1a849e64f732b51eec84https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18291746
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper