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.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Michael E. Labhard
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Michael E. Labhard (Sun,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/696f1a849e64f732b51eec84 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18291746
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: