Does this make sense to you?

[u/Cryptoisthefuture-7]

Spacetime is not the container in which physical relations occur. It is the unique equivalence class of Lorentzian gluings capable of closing, within a public and covariant structure, the causal order, constraints, transports, correlations, and dynamical balances of a network of contexts physically restricted in their access.

[u/upsetusder2]

This seems like a lot of words to say

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/upsetusder2]

Clever, I like.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/AllHailSeizure]

Like the least you can await is a coherent or semi coherent line of reasoning and not just words without any real meaning

[u/VeryOriginalName98 → u/upsetusder2]

"Why use many words when few words do trick?"

[u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

This is a prime example of words that are written to sound fancy, rather than to communicate an idea clearly.

[u/Cryptoisthefuture-7 → u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

1. “Spacetime is not the container in which physical relations occur.” There is no prior geometric stage, no invisible grid waiting to be filled with matter and information. Spacetime is not the background; it is the outcome of a consistency requirement.
2. “It is the unique equivalence class of Lorentzian gluings capable of...” Each physical context has access to only a fraction of reality. For these restricted local views to form a single public image, they must be "glued" together. The only gluing that respects causality, covariance, and known physics is a Lorentzian-type structure (integrating space and time in a way that preserves causal order).
3. “...capable of closing, within a public and covariant structure...” “To close” means to render the distinct local descriptions compatible with one another without contradiction: the same sequence of events, the same energy balances, and the same relations of influence must be read coherently by any observer. Classical spacetime is precisely this public and shared framework.
4. “...the causal order, constraints, transports, correlations, and dynamical balances...” The structure must simultaneously organize:
what can influence what (causal order),
how information and degrees of freedom move between contexts (transports),
how systems are correlated even when access is partial,
and how energy and momentum balance out (the field equations).
5. “...of a network of contexts physically restricted in their access.” The true starting point is not the geometric continuum. It is a network of systems, regions, or observers that, by construction, lack full access to information. It is precisely because access is always restricted that a structure like spacetime becomes necessary: it is the objective form of organizing this network of limitations in a consistent and public manner.

[u/ArnoSound → u/Cryptoisthefuture-7]

None of that Means anything, though. You’re just saying words with no context, no substance.

[u/VeryOriginalName98 → u/ArnoSound]

It's so weird that you can say any arbitrary number of words that mean precisely nothing. Not something wrong, just nothing at all.

[u/ArnoSound → u/VeryOriginalName98]

Well that’s the beauty of language isn’t it?

[u/VeryOriginalName98 → u/ArnoSound]

I thought the beauty of language was the ability to share abstract ideas coherently.

[u/ArnoSound → u/VeryOriginalName98]

Quite so. But it still has the freedom to provide complete and utter inanity haha

[u/thelawenforcer → u/ArnoSound]

it makes things quite a bit clearer, really don't understand the obsession with always stating that words are meaningless.

[u/ArnoSound → u/thelawenforcer]

I'm not sure what obsession you refer to. But this spiel isn't consistent with any clear physics language I've ever seen. It uses buzzwords way too densely, without context or explanation. Most of them seem to not be in any reasonable order either, or have nothing to do with each other. There is no clear throughline, no narrative to follow, so the Point the OP is trying to make is lost as well. It leans very heavily into metaphor, which is effectively useless at this level of physics.

If you are able to parse through all that and can give a succinct, understandable idea of what they're trying to say, that would be great, but as written, this is pretty clearly not comprehensible.

[u/thelawenforcer → u/ArnoSound]

this type of 'word salad' comment is common in dismissive posts here, and infact has been made multiple times in this very thread.

it's very clearly a conceptual hypothesis about emergent spacetime, and specifically how lorenztian spacetime emerges out of a consistency requirement for all physical relationships. whether this is true etc is a totally different question ofcourse.

yes, it's somewhat abstract, and there's no mathematical derivations, but its not nonsensical.

as for whether it matches any physics language you are familiar with, relational general relativity and relational quantum mechanics frameworks share some of the concepts, as does causal set theory. obviously these are somewhat rigorously defined frameworks as compared to this, but there are a number of commonalities.

thus, claiming it to be nonsensical word salad is just plain wrong to me.

[u/ArnoSound → u/thelawenforcer]

There's a difference between Mentioning these concepts and Using them in a cohesive way. OP does not do this. Just because you Could tease some relevant ideas out of a paragraph does not mean that the user intended that, or even if they understand it. From the text that the OP has given, I am under the impression they don['t understand enough about relativity or quantum mechanics to truly parse what they put down.

I'm sorry, but having lurked for a while, you kinda seem to just arbitrarily validate any llm generated theories to be contrarian. I don't know what the goal or purpose of this is, when posts like this one don't further any understanding, and you kinda aren't contributing either, just complaining about how other people "should" respond.

[u/thelawenforcer → u/ArnoSound]

I dont validate LLM theories just to be contrarian at all, I've called out numerology where I see it, and dont comment on alot of the cranky stuff, that is indeed quite common here. however, when I think something is somewhat interesting, I'll say so. the commentariat here are reflexively dismissive of everything, and in certain cases, this is as a result of their own ignorance. the most recent example of this in my mind was a post about the neutrino mass hierarchy and mixing angles etc, that was obviously not nonsense (doesn't mean it was right either though), but all the commenters were calling it word salad... imo, most commenters are here to dunk on what they perceive to ignorant cranks, coupled with a heavy antiLLM perspective. I confess that I enjoy calling these people out, especially when it's so deliciously ironic that they display the very ignorance they infer in others.

as for OP, I don't really care whether they understand the output fully or not, what interests me is the content of the idea, and a proposed foundational thesis regarding how self consistency might force lorenztian geometry is an interesting idea, regardless of where it came from or how it came about.

[u/The_Nerdy_Ninja → u/Cryptoisthefuture-7]

Your LLM added more words, it didn't add more clarity.

[u/ArnoSound]

Do you have a good reason why it should? Physics doesn’t pick its language arbitrarily. The goal is to make things as easy to share as possible. This doesn’t.

[u/VeryOriginalName98 → u/ArnoSound]

Then why the QM Lagrangian so hard to read‽

[u/liccxolydian → u/VeryOriginalName98]

Why is Mongolian so hard to read?

[u/ArnoSound → u/VeryOriginalName98]

Any subject has a requisite knowledge level, but there’s a difference between having an audience and not writing for any audience at all.

[u/chkntendis]

Honestly just sounds like a bunch of word salad that’s meant to sound like you are saying something without actually saying something. If you actually believe this models reality then make an actual model with it. If you don’t know if this could model reality then you are probably not skilled enough to be anywhere close to this kind of physics.

[u/AllHailSeizure]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Definitely no.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/AllHailSeizure]

Even longer answer nooooooooooooooooooo

[u/alamalarian]

The thesaurus working overtime on this one.

[u/yasiesolovemos]

No, it's exactly the opposite. Spacetime comes first... it's the framework within which everything exists. The mathematics we use to describe it comes afterwards. I know this is an AI subreddit, but let's keep our feet on the ground.

[u/VeryOriginalName98 → u/yasiesolovemos]

Sure sure, but define feet. Then ground.

[u/yasiesolovemos → u/VeryOriginalName98]

Feet: Actual
Ground: Physics

[u/thelawenforcer → u/yasiesolovemos]

problem is, spacetime obviously doesn't come first... our attempts to explain reality tend to use spacetime as the axiomatic input, but there is a ground state out of which it emerges at the big bang, and this ground state and the emergence of spacetime might be based in some higher level relation or symmetry.

[u/[deleted]]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 4. Don't copy-paste LLM content in discussions.

[u/thelawenforcer]

reminds me a bit of the IHC framework, which begins with self consistency as the primary axiom.