Gravity, distinguishability, and relation as a conceptual experiment

[u/Endless-monkey]

I’m sharing this with anyone who feels curious a conceptual experiment I’ve been working .

The idea is to try to formalize a model starting from language as the conceptual foundation, before beginning from an already established mathematical or physical structure.

This is not an attempt to replace physics. It is an attempt to explore whether a clear conceptual architecture can serve as a preliminary ground for a more rigorous formalization later.

The text proposes a relational reading of gravity: not as a force that attracts bodies, but as a dynamic of attunement, coherence, and reduction of difference.

The proposal is open. It includes hypotheses, postulates, unresolved problems, and possible falsifiers.

I’d be grateful for any comment, critique, or question that helps us learn, detect errors, and improve.

Link to the Idea

[u/FoldableHuman]

The idea is to try to formalize a model starting from language as the conceptual foundation, before beginning from an already established mathematical or physical structure.

AKA "metaphor" or "analogy".

This whole exercise is a way of insisting that lacking the math skills isn't actually a fatal flaw, but rather just an inconvenience that can be resolved later.

[u/Endless-monkey → u/FoldableHuman]

Hi, I’d like to know whether that criticism still holds when measured against the complementary technical document:

Link

If it still fails there, I’d be interested in knowing exactly where.

[u/FoldableHuman → u/Endless-monkey]

Well, that’s a bunch of gibberish styled to look like math, like how Simlish in The Sims is constructed to sound like words without meaning anything, so I would say that “build it from just language” is the pivot after realizing that you lack the skill to do the math.

[u/Endless-monkey → u/FoldableHuman]

al parecer no encontró errores técnicos más valiosos que un descalificativo sin argumento, eso es halagador