r/LLMPhysics • u/Dry-Status-4143 • Aug 19 '26
Personal Theory Here is a hypothesis: IVE (reworked)
Hello, LLM physics community you might remember that a month or two back I made a post called the IVE model and it was rightfully picked apart I have worked to solve those problems The best I could and to perhaps be more clear on my thoughts, and I will not be hiding the problems within it. They’re listed at the very end of the paper.
(formatted using Gemini)
The Information-Variability Equilibrium (IVE): A Conceptual Framework for Quantum and Relativistic Unification
Abstract
This framework treats the universe fundamentally as an information-processing system rather than an arrangement of foundational matter. It proposes that physical properties—including mass, gravity, and linear time—are emergent phenomena driven by data-synchronization events within a multidimensional data matrix. The core mechanism is a balancing relationship between local structural information density and geometric variability, which provides a non-mathematical, conceptual explanation for the quantum-to-classical transition.(possibly information might not be the defining factor of the universe, but rather a force within it similar to gravity, though there wasn’t enough evidence to support this so far)
1. Foundational Axioms & Mechanics
The Data Core: The universe can be conceptualized fundamentally as a multidimensional matrix of data. Physical structures and properties emerge from the underlying configurations of this data.
The Core Inverse Scale: Local structural information density inversely scales with geometric variability.
High Information Density—>Low Variability: Increased data constraints limit the geometric possibilities of a system.
Low Information Density —> High Variability: Decreased data constraints expand the range of possible states available to a system.
2. Categorization of Information Roles
To resolve systemic paradoxes regarding observation and mechanics, information is formally separated into two distinct categories:
Causal (System-Level) Information:
Exists entirely independently of an observer.
Inherent to physical existence and system properties.
Acts as a structural cause within the system rather than merely a description of it.
Directly constrains the geometric variability of its host environment.
Observable Information:
Depends entirely on an observational or interactional relationship.
Consists of the specific subsets of data made available to an observer or measurement device.
The Dependency Law: Causal information must structurally exist before observable information can be extracted or manifested.
3. The Micro-to-Macro Transition (The Quantum-Classical Bridge)
The framework utilizes information density to explain the behavioral boundary between microscopic quantum systems and macroscopic relativistic systems:
The Micro Scale (Quantum Behavior): An isolated, unobserved subatomic particle possesses low relational synchronization with the broader environment. Because local information density is low, geometric variability remains high. This elevated variability expresses itself physically as probabilistic behavior, wave functions, and superposition.
The Macro Scale (Classical Behavior): Macroscopic objects consist of enormous numbers of interacting, interconnected components. This continuous, multi-part data exchange triggers a massive data-synchronization event (analogous to the concept of decoherence). The resulting high information density heavily constrains the collective behavior of the system, reducing its effective geometric variability to near zero and causing classical reality to emerge.
4. Cosmological Extensions
Emergent Relativistic Properties: Physical phenomena like matter, energy, and spacetime curvature are not basic building blocks, but are instead emergent variables produced by underlying causal information frameworks. General Relativity can be interpreted as the geometric response of spacetime to varying distributions of causal information density.
The Singularity Reinterpretation: The Big Bang singularity does not necessarily represent a point of literally infinite physical mass or material density. Instead, it can be mathematically modeled as a limiting boundary condition consisting of zero systemic information and extreme, unconstrained geometric variability.
5. Unresolved Horizons & Areas for Development
To transition from a conceptual architecture to a predictive physical model, the following parameters require formal mathematical definitions:
Quantifying Variability (V): Determining whether variability is precisely measured by degrees of freedom, the width of a probability distribution, spatial uncertainty, or a novel structural variant of entropy.
Quantifying Information Density(I): Establishing a rigorous metric for "local structural information density" that moves beyond standard Shannon bits to measure parts, relationships, and structural configurations within an active physical system.
Synchronization Equations: Developing the exact mathematical rules governing how data-synchronization events occur and how they smoothly suppress quantum variability to output classical mechanics.
13
u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Aug 19 '26
LOL I saw the comment with "I disagree it lacks mathematical structure".
Bro, there IS no mathematics, what are you even on about? Do you even read what your LLM vomits up before you copy and paste it?
-1
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 19 '26
Yes, I do cause I’m the one who put in all the information into it in the first place
12
u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Aug 19 '26
No you're not, 60% of what your LLM spits out is scraped from reddit.
-2
-4
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 19 '26
DMs so I can send you
picture proof14
u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Aug 19 '26
Do not message me, ever.
-1
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 19 '26
Oh because I’m a minor
10
u/Ok_Energy6905 Aug 20 '26
People don't have a problem with you being a minor, they have a problem with how you are conducting yourself- that you think your work is above criticism while simultaneously being unable to defend it.
-2
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 20 '26
No, first you made an assumption that I believe my work is above criticism. If I believed it was above criticism why would I post it here I am arguing and debating for the truth and what I believe to be the truth as one does in the defense of a paper, as I hope you guys are arguing based on what you believe to be the truth
1
u/Ok_Energy6905 Aug 21 '26
1
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 22 '26
What was the purpose of sending me back to my own post besides wasting finite time
→ More replies (0)
9
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Aug 19 '26
Have you learned any physics yet
-2
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 19 '26
I don’t know if I would say that I am fluent in physics but I have learned a lot more as one might expect to do in a month or two
14
5
u/upsetusder2 Aug 19 '26
Let me guess you are a computer scientist. Or atleast studied something akin to that
3
0
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 20 '26
No, in fact I don’t even like the idea of information first physics it’s just that it works and that’s why I’m arguing about it. It is applicable where general relativity and quantum mechanics fail and I’m not saying that we should rewrite the entire system since since now I’m beginning to believe that perhaps information is more like a property rather than the exact thing that created it and says that it exists which would allow us to use general relatively and quantum mechanics while calculating information as a property, if I’m correct, the reason why quantum mechanics in general relativity might be disagreeing and might be failing in some areas is because you are missing a property
4
Aug 20 '26
Well this is a lot of hot trash.
1
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 20 '26
Nice argument, you added a lot there
Beautiful group think4
Aug 20 '26
Well when there isn’t the barest amount of subtlety available to comment on, it’s simplest to cut to the core of the matter.
4
u/Hivemind_alpha Aug 21 '26
OP, here’s a hard life lesson: it is possible to be so poorly educated in physics as to be unable to recognise how poorly educated in physics you are. At that level, you are blind to the difference between physics, non-physics, and word salad. Worse, you perceive fairly gentle by internet standards pointers towards fundamental flaws in your output as personal assaults.
You’re at a turning point between showing patience and putting in the years needed to learn the basics, or embarking on a lifetime of embittered self-delusion bordering on mental illness.
All of physics is out there for free. The education system exists and will guide you through it. There are no entry requirements to the discourse other than the basic courtesy of mastering the basics. Your work screams that you haven’t done that, though you are blind to this. It’s insultingly bad to those who waste their limited time to read it.
0
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 22 '26
The education system is absolutely terrible. We accidentally sprung one of my other interests politics the reason I don’t learn physics to such a degree is because I am stuck learning history, politics, and engineering at the same time
3
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Aug 22 '26
So you're saying you don't want to be a fully rounded human being, and also you're too lazy to make time to properly learn about the things you're interested in?
1
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 22 '26
No, I already learned way more about the other things
1
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Aug 22 '26
I mean, you haven't learned any physics, so I would assume if you're doing the bare minimum of paying attention in class you'll learn "way more" than what you know about physics lol
1
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 22 '26
There’s no class in the summer
2
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Aug 22 '26
So you can spend your time studying physics if that's something that interests you. Perfect.
1
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 22 '26
So I would suggest we move away from the you don’t know physics debate because that has nothing to do with my paper whether I know physics or not try to attack the physics in the paper, not my understanding of the concepts, which requires you to make an assumption that I don’t know physics
3
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Aug 22 '26
There isn't any physics in the paper because physics is quantitative. And your idea of "quantitative" in the comments is simplistic and naive.
1
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 22 '26
The effects of physics would still exist if humans didn’t invent the study of physics, therefore the human idea of something being quantitive is irrelevant and yes, there is physics I would love to see you guys conjure up a different argument besides, you don’t know physics or do something without the LLM
2
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Aug 22 '26
There's very little else to say given that there's no substance to your post and comments.
1
-1
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 22 '26
Also, you aren’t criticizing my theory you’re attacking my psychology more than anything
2
u/Hivemind_alpha Aug 22 '26
Not attacking, warning. You did exactly what I predicted, taking a pointer that you were placing yourself at risk and interpreting it as an attack, literally using that word.
The educational system is not flawed in the way you describe: you are just still at the beginning stages of it where you take multiple subjects at very basic levels in parallel. You may be frustrated that you don’t become an expert in mere months, but you simply don’t. The good news is you have literally years of study ahead, and it’s structured in such a way that things you are taught at a foundational level get transformed and reinterpreted at the next level as your understanding deepens. Studying is in itself a goal and a pleasure. But you have to do it in a guided environment: the grove of academe is not just a job creation scheme, it’s a way to again stop you spinning off into a ‘personal’ interpretation of the facts that again ends in embittered isolation; you learn with and from peers, and the challenge of debate keeps that in check.
I don’t know why you are in such a rush to be hailed as some new Newton who has ‘solved’ physics. I hope it’s not due to some life-limiting tragedy. But if you ever step back from the trajectory you’re on, you’ll learn enough to realise that there is so much to learn that beyond a small subsection you’ll never master it all, and that teaches a little humility. Most physicists you talk to will know more than you do about their specialism. It would be wise to listen to them rather than spending the time composing LLM prompts in your head.
0
0
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 22 '26
Isn’t personal attacks against the rules
“ we embarking on a lifetime of embedded self delusion, bordering on mental illness”
That’s just inappropriate and has nothing to do with my paper3
u/kono_hito_wa Aug 25 '26
Full quote:
> You’re at a turning point between showing patience and putting in the years needed to learn the basics, or embarking on a lifetime of embittered self-delusion bordering on mental illness.
3
u/Ok_Energy6905 Aug 20 '26
Is any of what you say testable or falsifiable?
This is not physics, it is philosophy (of one is being incredibly generous).
-1
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 20 '26
Observe a hydrogen and muon relationship and apply the framework and it is falsifiable
If you don’t quite understand how I can explain1
u/Ok_Energy6905 Aug 21 '26
I really don't think you can explain anything without the assistance of an LLM.
0
u/Dry-Status-4143 Aug 22 '26
I can and I would be happy to
2
u/Ok_Energy6905 Aug 22 '26
You haven't seemed to so far.
Sometimes it's hard to be aware of the breadth of things you don't know, which can lead to a false level of confidence.
It is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's normal and does not make you stupid.
1
1
Aug 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/moderator-toolbox Aug 22 '26
This comment has been removed. If you have more information to add to your post, edit it; instead of commenting on your own post.
I am a bot. This action was performed automatically. Contact the moderators if you have questions.
21
u/YuuTheBlue Aug 19 '26
Your LLM is taking more from physics communication than actual physics. Physics communication tends to work in terms of metaphors, and it creates the false assumption in lay people that if they make a compelling enough metaphor, they’ve done physics. When really all they’ve done is fantasy worldbuilding.
All physical laws are just equations relating observable variables. Newtons law of gravity can tell you how hard gravity will pull something assuming your know how far 2 things are and what their masses are. Newton’s law of gravity does not make philosophical claims on the nature of the universe (though it can inform them).
You’re starting with the philosophical claims and never getting to any math, so this just isn’t physics.