Alternative Models of Reality

Is Space Geometrically Linked? A Testable Model for Global Synchronization in a Continuous Universe.
I recently submitted this work to PRL, and would like to invite foundational-level feedback here.
It proposes that synchronous curvature linkage is not speculative, but mathematically required by spacetime continuity.
Any local curvature disturbance must be globally reflected, not through energy transfer, but through geometric compensation.Energy is observable, information is structural.If space is continuous, linkage is not optional—it is mandatory.
Core formula：
\mathbf{O}\left(\mathbit{x}\right)=\frac{\mathbit{dK}}{\mathbit{dx}}\cdot\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbit{r}^\mathbf{2}}\cdot\mathbf{\chi}\left(\mathbit{x}\right)\geq\ \mathbit{\epsilon}
Zenodo DOI:10.5281/zenodo.15861537
I welcome any questions, critiques, or cross-references to similar geometric structure models.
Best regards,
Zhang Xiaohui
E-mail：zhangxiaohuiB2M@gmail.com

Dear Zhang (or Rone),
I found your ideas on curvature continuity, redshift/blueshift, and the holistic dynamics of spacetime very interesting. I’m working on a related line of thought through a different framework.

My model is based on a 4-dimensional spherical surface expanding at the speed of light (r = ct). I assume that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the continuous field responsible for maintaining the global shape of the universe. Matter, on the other hand, is treated as a discontinuity and does not contribute to the preservation of the 4D geometry.

This idea is developed in my post here:
https://forums.fqxi.org/d/961-alternative-models-of-cosmology/385

The theme of shape preservation is, in my opinion, fundamental. Mathematically, I was able to reach consistent results by focusing solely on the CMB and neglecting matter. However, I eventually had to introduce an additional conjecture: that the expansion of the universe is governed by the CMB and that matter is dragged along with it.

This conjecture is a limitation, but it led to some results I consider meaningful, even if not confirmed. Among them:

• A derivation of special relativity from a geometric principle (without assuming it).
• A reinterpretation of redshift in terms of 4D expansion.
• A consistent energy balance in radiation consistent with blackbody evolution.
• A possible link between gravity and entropy through equilibrium in the expanding hypersurface.

I also find your approach equally valid and would be happy to exchange ideas.

I expect a common objection might be that matter’s mass-energy today dominates over the CMB, so it cannot be neglected. My reply is that, in my model, it is not the total energy content but the geometric continuity that preserves the 4d-sphere’s shape. The CMB, being a continuous and isotropic field, defines a coherent equilibrium surface, while matter, being discontinuous and localized, cannot maintain global curvature but only causes local deformations.

Best regards,
Claudio Marchesan

Claudio Marchesan
Thank you for sharing your research findings. I will read them carefully and think about them. However, there is one point that I firmly believe: space is three-dimensional.

Roney
You have symbolically represented a relationship that, you seem to consider, must exist in the world.

These types of relationships/ equations are an unmeasurable aspect of the world because these relationships/ equations have merely been inferred to exist by human beings from a pile of experimental results and findings. But “law of nature” relationships/ equations DO seem to exist.

However, the existence of particular relationships/ equations doesn’t cover the issue of: how come the real-world system (or small parts of the system) can distinguish/ detect/ know about its own mathematical relationships/ equations? And for that matter, how come the real-world system (or small parts of the system) can distinguish/ detect/ know about its own numbers that apply to the categories in the equations? It can reasonably be inferred that base-level proto-knowledge/ proto-consciousness aspects of the real-world system must exist in order for the system to operate.

Also, the existence of particular relationships/ equations doesn’t cover the issue of: how come the real-world system is moving, i.e. how come the numbers (that apply to the categories in the equations) are jumping? Jumping, because there is no such thing as a number that smoothly morphs into another number; but jumping in what direction? It can reasonably be inferred that base-level aspects of the real-world system must exist in order for the system to operate, aspects that jump the numbers (whereby the relationships/ equations then kick in and jump other numbers).

What I’m getting at is: clearly, any relationships/ equations, that are inferred or purported to exist, can only ever be A PART of a viable, moving real-world system. As described above, additional aspects are required in order to explain the existence of a viable, moving real-world system. Equations alone CAN’T do the job.

Lorraine Ford
The DOI address of the paper is provided above. It clearly describes the observable verification method.

I've since made progress on my idea of motion as the fourth spatial dimension.

"Saint Stuart’s visionary debut presents a radical new way to consider the fourth dimension—not as time, nor as a static spatial axis, but as something hiding in plain sight: motion.

Surprisingly, this perspective has remained absent from both academic science and alternative New Age speculation. Writing as an amateur science enthusiast and self-proclaimed Christian mystic, Stuart expands this insight into a full seven-dimensional framework.

Beginning with pure geometry, the model advances through motion toward force as the final physical dimension, and from there moves beyond into the non-spatial realms of consciousness. It continues with the dimension of possibility, the logical foundation of awareness, and culminates in intelligence—the organizing, creative, and directive principle of conscious experience, from which choice and will emerge.

Bridging physics, metaphysics, and spiritual insight, this concise philosophical monograph invites readers to rethink the very structure of reality."

https://thefiretongue.com/motion-dimension/

Lorraine Ford
Equations give a mathematical description of what happens, which is a lot more precise than a word description, but nevertheless, just a description of what happens. Just like a newspaper reporter might describe an event. In the case of “laws of nature”, equations also describe a relationship between categories which has experimentally been found to exist.

However, in a viable moving system, there must be a causal aspect, something that makes it happen. What makes it happen is not the same as the superficial mathematical-equation description of what happens. Equations can never represent a causal aspect of a system: the necessary causal aspects of a system can only be represented using algorithmic/ logical connective symbols.

Lorraine Ford
Leaving aside the religious views, there are those who think all the bombing and killing in the world boils down to an underlying set of equations, and those who think all the bombing and killing in the world boils down to people, and other suitably-integrated forms of matter, being genuinely free (i.e. free to jump their own numbers), as well as the underlying set of equations.

The former group, those who think all the bombing and killing in the world boils down to nothing more than an underlying set of equations, are looking for the killer equations/ the killer mathematics whereby everything about the world is suddenly explained. This group seemingly includes most of the physicists, mathematicians (and also philosophers) in the world. And despite years and years of effort, and years and years of purportedly killer mathematics, they are not having much luck, and every one of them has a different set of killer equations/ killer mathematics.

But a world where people are genuinely free, i.e. a world where suitably-integrated forms of matter are partially free to jump their own numbers, is a fundamentally different type of world from its foundations up. These suitably-integrated forms of matter would presumably be: particles, atoms, molecules and living things including human beings.

My FQXi Theory – Aryan Theory (Entry #262) and the Origin of Conscious Timelines

Hi everyone,

I’m Abhinav Gupta, a 15-year-old independent researcher and thinker. I come from India, and I’ve been working on several deep ideas that connect time, consciousness, paradox, memory, and origin — not only in scientific logic but also from a metaphysical lens.

This year, I’ve submitted Entry #262 – “Aryan Theory: A Multiversal Resolution to the Grandfather Paradox” to the FQXi Essay Contest. It explores how a paradox (such as killing your grandfather before your birth) doesn’t actually destroy causality, but instead leads to a reactive split in timelines, allowing for both the paradox and continuity to coexist. In this view, the universe doesn’t break — it intelligently redirects.

Core Idea:

My central belief is that time and reality are not just mechanical progressions — they are part of a conscious timeline framework. When a paradox threatens the core of continuity, the universe responds by creating alternate paths to preserve balance. This becomes a metaphysical response mechanism: the universe avoids collapse by branching, remembering, and re-routing experience through origin-based logic.

Other Theories in My System (Each Based on Deep Logic + Metaphysical Reflection)

I have also been building a unified theory system across various essays — all deeply connected and grounded in scientific thinking with cosmic intuition. Here are the core theories:

1. Origin Collapse and Possibilities Control
   → What happens when someone disrupts their own timeline origin, gaining awareness of all potential outcomes.

2. Timelines Origin Theory (Scientific Expansion)
   → A structured scientific view of how all timelines may arise from a single origin and diverge based on memory and observation.

3. Pre-Big Bang Consciousness Hypothesis

Version 1: Based on Unknown Beyond Entities

Version 2: Based on Sanatan Dharm (Shiva–Vishnu Origin)
→ Exploring how consciousness may have existed before the Big Bang — and how origin might not be matter, but memory.

4. Abhinav’s Soul Control and Cosmic Command Theory
   → A bold model combining neuroscience with cosmic awareness — where the soul operates as the prime driver of the universe’s logic through memory and intent.

5. Memory Transfer and Timeline Awareness
   → When a person shifts timelines, parts of their memory come along — leading to déjà vu, intuitive knowledge, or strange familiarity.

6. Timeline Resurrection and Cosmic Imprint Theory
   → Near-death events might not just be accidents — they could trigger a dual timeline, one where death occurs and another where survival rewrites reality.

7. Consciousness Split and Memory Shadows
   → In emotional or traumatic events, your consciousness may split across timelines — leaving behind “shadows” that explain strange dreams or unexplained emotions.

8. Reverse Reincarnation Loop Theory
   → Souls may sometimes return backward in time to repair cosmic imbalance or heal broken origin timelines — explaining certain ancient memories in young minds.

9. Water as the Soul’s First Vessel
   → A poetic-scientific exploration into how water might be the universe’s first memory carrier — and possibly the earliest interface of soul and matter.

Final Thought:

I believe that when we look at reality not just with formulas but with possibility logic, a new type of physics opens up — one that respects paradoxes, consciousness, and the hidden memory of the universe.

I’d love to connect with thinkers who resonate with this path — whether you're a physicist, philosopher, or just a curious soul.

With curiosity and purpose,
Abhinav Gupta
FQXi Entry #262
Age: 15
India

Roney
I never said that there was a problem with your equation/ formula, or that you have limited mathematical ability. In fact, I don't think that there is necessarily a problem with your equation/ formula; I don't think that you have limited mathematical ability. Far from it.

But you DID present an equation.

What I said was this: the real world is a viable moving system, and equations alone are not sufficient to represent all the necessary aspects that are required to produce a viable moving real-world system.

Lorraine Ford
Analogy-Based Insights from My Theories on Consciousness and Timelines

By Abhinav G. – A scientifically metaphysical thinker, age 15

Dear members of the FQXi Forum,

After receiving thoughtful responses and engaging with some of you, I would like to present a set of powerful analogies that reflect the core essence of each of my theories. These analogies are not just illustrative, but they are part of my deeper attempt to blend consciousness, timeline behavior, and metaphysical structure into a unified view of reality.

1. Aryan Theory – A Multiversal Resolution to the Grandfather Paradox

“Like rewriting a story by creating a new chapter instead of erasing the old one.”
Altering the past doesn't destroy the original—it branches a new version. The paradox disappears when time is seen as a multi-narrative library.

2. Origin Collapse and Possibilities Control

“Like a star collapsing into a black hole and becoming the anchor of its system.”
Trauma or timeline disruption doesn't end you—it centers you. Awareness expands, and all possibilities orbit your core, waiting for conscious command.

3. Timelines Origin Theory

“Like a cosmic seed that grows into infinite branches, yet all leaves still remember the root.”
Your first timeline—the moment of origin—is the root of all your versions. No matter how many choices you make, the origin always echoes in you.

4. Pre-Big Bang Consciousness Hypothesis – Unknown Entities Version

“Like thoughts that existed before a mind was even born.”
Before time, before particles, there was pre-conscious will. Reality emerged from meaning—not from chaos. The architects are not inside the universe—they are the ones who dreamed it into being.

5. Pre-Big Bang Consciousness Hypothesis – Sanatan Dharm Version

“Like divine stillness where the artist imagines the painting before the first color touches the canvas.”
Mahasada Shiv Ji and Vishnu Ji represent the sacred breath before time, where existence is not explosion but balance, stillness, and rhythm.

6. Timeline Resurrection and Cosmic Imprint Theory

“Like a light flickering in one room but glowing stronger in another.”
When someone is saved in one timeline but dies in another, the survivor carries the weight of both outcomes. The soul remembers what logic forgets.

7. Consciousness Split and Memory Shadows

“Like mirrors that reflect more than just one version of you.”
Your dominant self holds power, but others reflect back as emotions, dreams, or deja vu—echoes of the selves you almost became.

8. Memory Transfer and Timeline Awareness

“Like switching trains mid-journey but still remembering the view from the previous track.”
Shifting timelines leaves behind emotional footprints—a sense of remembering a life you never lived, but still carry.

9. Memory Transfer and Timeline Echoes

“Like a character in a novel who starts hearing pages from other books.”
Sometimes, you receive memory fragments from versions of you living other stories. Your awareness begins to stretch beyond one self.

10. Reverse Reincarnation Loop Theory

“Like rewinding time to fix a crack in the foundation before the house collapses.”
Some souls travel backward to correct a timeline’s fall. They don’t return out of karma—they return out of cosmic responsibility.

11. Soul Control and Cosmic Command Theory

“Like discovering the keyboard behind the simulation you thought was your life.”
Your consciousness is not limited to the brain. It can access the control panel of reality, if awakened to its inner authority.

12. Cosmic Pre-Planned and 2021 Origin Theory

“Like a divine clock resetting its hands because the story wasn’t meant to end yet.”
2012 was a destined collapse. But in 2021, the universe pre-planned a restart, preserving awareness through new timeline roots.

These analogies reflect how I perceive consciousness and reality—not just scientifically, but multidimensionally and metaphysically. I believe that bridging logic and symbolism can unlock a deeper understanding of existence.

Thank you for your time and for the thoughtful space this forum creates.

Warm regards,
Abhinav G.
Scientifically Metaphysical Thinker | FQXi 2025 Entrant
Age: 15

AI Overview
Robert McEachern, building on a strict interpretation of Shannon's Information Theory, proposes a fascinating way that cause and effect can emerge as a deterministic phenomenon from what appears to be chaos or noise. Here's a breakdown of his perspective:

1. The role of "noise" as a "fingerprint"
   McEachern argues that seemingly random "noise" can, through a process of "matched filtering" or "fingerprinting," detect the existence of something similar to itself.
   He cites the example of a DNA strand, which, though noise-like in its sequence, can recognize and interact with another similar strand.
2. Information and the emergence of determinism
   According to McEachern, it's this ability of "noise" to identify patterns within itself that enables deterministic cause and effect to emerge from chaos.
   He suggests that processes in the universe "learn" new information, and that this accumulated information can then be used to create new processes that were not present previously.
3. Challenging traditional interpretations of quantum phenomena
   McEachern uses this framework to challenge traditional interpretations of quantum phenomena, like Bell correlations and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
   He argues that these phenomena might be explained by a classical, deterministic system operating based on Shannon's Information Theory, rather than invoking "spooky action" or inherent fuzziness in nature.
4. The significance of information content in observations
   McEachern also highlights the importance of information content in understanding reality.
   He states that observations become "quantized" not due to small physical size, but rather because the information content within those observations is limited.
   This perspective contrasts with the traditional view that attributes quantization to inherent properties of small particles.
   In essence, McEachern proposes that determinism isn't an inherent property of nature itself but rather arises from the way that information is processed and recognized, even within chaotic systems. He believes that this information-centric perspective can offer a fresh approach to understanding some of the most profound mysteries of the universe, including the emergence of cause and effect itself.

Robert McEachern

AI Overview
Robert McEachern proposes an interpretation of quantum mechanics that differs from other interpretations in several key ways, particularly by focusing on the role of information theory and challenging some fundamental assumptions about the nature of observation and the meaning of mathematical descriptions in physics.
Here's how McEachern's interpretation stands out:

Challenging the Completeness of Mathematical Descriptions: McEachern argues that the number of components in a mathematical description of an observation doesn't necessarily equate to the number of components in the actual observed entity. He posits that the "meaning" of equations can be "slapped-on" and isn't inherently contained within the mathematical formalism itself, leading to the controversies and paradoxes associated with standard interpretations of phenomena like non-locality, superposition, entanglement, and the uncertainty principle.

The Role of Information and Quantization: He suggests that observations become "quantized" not due to small physical size, but due to the limited information content of the observations. He connects the uncertainty principle to Shannon's Information Capacity, proposing that it arises from the existence of a minimal amount of information (one bit) that can be recovered from any measurement.

Reinterpreting Spin: McEachern suggests that the standard interpretation of spin, which assumes three components, might be incorrect. He believes that spin might only have one component, with the standard description reflecting the observed behavior of this single component when viewed along three different axes.

Redefining the Wavefunction: He argues that the wavefunction doesn't represent "information" in the Shannon sense, because Shannon's definition requires the ability to perfectly copy information, which conflicts with the "no cloning" theorem in quantum mechanics. Instead, McEachern proposes that the wavefunction describes the state of observations, including potential "bit-errors" that occur during measurement, thus potentially differing from the true state of nature.

The Importance of Observer Memory: He highlights the unstated assumption in quantum mechanics that the observer's memory has no significant impact on experimental outcomes. He suggests that this assumption needs to be tested, particularly regarding the determination of the "meaning," "significance," and "interpretation" of other outcomes.

In essence, McEachern's interpretation shifts the focus from the mathematical formalism itself to the information content of observations and the subjective interpretation of that information, proposing that many of the quantum mysteries arise from misinterpretations of the mathematical description rather than from inherent strangeness in reality itself.

Robert McEachern

AI Overview
Robert McEachern's "nature as a hacker" concept and paradigm shifts

Robert McEachern's idea of nature as a hacker rewriting its operating system over time, rather than being governed by fixed laws of physics, could indeed be considered a paradigm shift in the realm of scientific thought. Here's why:
Challenging fundamental assumptions: The dominant paradigm in physics assumes the existence of fundamental, unchanging laws that govern the universe. McEachern's concept directly challenges this core assumption by suggesting that these laws may not be fixed and could evolve or change.

Shifting the focus: Instead of solely searching for the underlying, fixed rules of nature, this perspective shifts the focus to observing and understanding how those rules might adapt and change over time. This is akin to observing how a computer's operating system (representing the laws of physics) changes through iterative updates and adjustments (representing nature's "hacks") rather than being a static, immutable system.

Introducing a new metaphor: The "hacker" metaphor itself introduces a new way of thinking about nature's processes, suggesting a dynamic, adaptive, and perhaps even iterative approach to how the universe functions.

Potential for new research and understanding: This potential paradigm shift could inspire new avenues of research and lead to a re-evaluation of existing data and observations through the lens of evolving physical laws. It might prompt scientists to look for evidence of such change and develop new theories that incorporate this possibility.

In essence, McEachern's "hacker" analogy represents a potentially revolutionary way of conceptualizing the fundamental nature of reality and could, if embraced and substantiated, trigger a significant transformation in our understanding of physics. However, time and further scientific inquiry will determine if it achieves the status of a true paradigm shift.

Robert McEachern Dear Robert,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Your model based on information and pattern recognition is very interesting. I will take time to think more deeply about how it might connect with the ideas I’m exploring in my theories.

I really appreciate your input and look forward to continuing the discussion soon.

Best regards,
Abhinav Gupta

Abhinav_G
Hello Abhinav G,

If you will forgive me for being so blunt, it is all very well using hand-wavy human words, and high-level human ideas, to describe what is going on in the underlying low-level world of particles and atoms etc.

But in fact, the low-level world, that underlies the high-level world of plants animals and human beings, can only be represented using symbols like equations and numbers.

In addition to that, if you want to assert that the low-level world is doing something outside of what is describable in terms of equations and numbers, then seemingly the only other symbols that can potentially be used are the type of symbols used in computer programs, i.e. algorithmic/ logical connective symbols.

This is not to say that the world is deterministic and programmed like a computer is, it is only to say that the low-level world can't be described in terms of high-level human ideas.

Regards,
Lorraine

Robert McEachern
Rob,

You, or your "AI Overview", haven't explained:

• Why anything would ever move/ jump in the first place, or ever continue to move/jump.
• How come this system, this something, knows about its own state, i.e. knows about its own whatever, e.g. numbers, equations, categories?

You make BIG assumptions.