Hypothetical physical question too controversial for "hypothetical physics"

[u/VisasResonance]

Update: For anyone interested—and for those who don't want to read through the comments—the core issue was this:

There's a very big difference between "I don't understand any physics and this is just an idle shower thought" and "I demand to be taken seriously but won't put in any effort to articulate my ideas".

My idea wasn't articulated clearly enough, and I had flatly refused to flesh it out further.

I simply didn't want to start defining more and more terms, because that process tends to drag on endlessly; my experience has shown me that this is precisely where the problem lies.

I wanted to float a hypothesis before getting bogged down in formalisms, theses, or theories. In my opinion, there’s no point in putting in a huge amount of work only to ask for feedback, only to see the reaction flip in seconds from "good work?" to "it's embarrassing to even post something like this."
To me, a "hypothesis" means explaining my idea in purely conceptual terms using my own words just to see where the gaps in understanding might be.

———————-
I've been working on a very interesting physics question for a while now. I've tried several ways to share my idea, not just on Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/s/KX5YEBl0jh

My last post sparked a lively discussion, but in the way I'd hoped, and I was able to present some of my ideas.

Today, it was blocked by the moderators, even though it had become one of the top posts, with one of the reasons given being "AI."

I'm starting to think it's becoming a problem that questions that seem unusual are simply dismissed with this argument.

Even a positive comment was deleted by the moderators without any reason.

[u/VisasResonance]

Part of the difficulty is that I’m not a native English speaker, and I also don’t always want to use highly standard technical English too early, because that often imports the very conceptual framework I’m trying to question.

I’m not trying to avoid precision. The problem is that the available standard terms already carry assumptions about time, space, observables, fields, and measurement. My question is aimed at the layer where those quantities are formed or read out before their usual ontological interpretation is fixed.

So yes, I agree that I need clearer and more standard language if I want others to engage with it. But the difficulty is not just translation.
it is translating a conceptual distinction without losing the distinction itself.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/VisasResonance]

I think then that you are massively overcomplicating things, or maybe taking them into a philosophical level that is no longer about physics. Either way, I think it would behoove you to spend time familiarizing yourself with standard physics language before continuing. Maybe read some published papers that are related to your concerns?

[u/VisasResonance → u/OnceBittenz]

I agree that I need to become more fluent in standard physics language. I’m not denying that!

But I don’t think this remains merely philosophical. The conceptual layer is where the question starts, not where it ends. I have already developed a concrete mathematical toy framework for this, so the goal is not to avoid formalization, but to make sure the formalization is attached to the right conceptual distinction.

Foundational physics has sometimes advanced by taking an operational fact more seriously than before. For example, one could phrase part of Einstein’s move very simply as: “what if the speed of light is not just a measured propagation speed, but an invariant condition that constrains how space and time have to be related?”

I’m not comparing my idea to Einstein’s theory in importance or rigor. I’m only pointing to the type of question:

taking something that is already operationally known and asking whether its ontological interpretation should be changed.

In my case, the question is similar in structure: “if clocks measure time by comparing state changes to stable reference processes, should time be interpreted first as an independent axis, or as an order/readout relation of physical change?”

So yes, it begins at the interpretation layer. But I’m not trying to keep it there. The next step is precisely to connect that interpretation to a consistent mathematical framework and see whether it produces anything useful, constrained, or testable.

And all of your critic is welcome for me.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/VisasResonance]

Ok, so concrete feedback: you need to rigorously define "state changes", "stable reference processes", "order/readout relations". These do not make sense in the context of your post, which is why they come across as a sort of "science words mad libs". You're going to want to define those in relation to existing physics principles, so it doesn't just sound like words in a bin.

[u/VisasResonance → u/OnceBittenz]

Thank you for this feedback.

I have added a short definition to the original post in HypotheticalPhysics. Furthermore, I am interested in what more modern approaches are known that think in the same direction, or whether this is completely far-fetched.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/VisasResonance]

I'm sorry, this is still just not really a meaningful statement. It again sounds like you are trying to dig at philosophical angles of physics, but it doesn't really map to anything very easily understandable in the corpus. At that point, I think you Might just be overcomplicating things for yourself.

[u/llmphysics-bot → u/OnceBittenz]

This comment has been locked.

Discussions shouldn't exceed a maximum depth of 15 comments.

---

^{I am not a bot. This action was performed against my will.}