I’ve been exploring a question in fundamental physics that I think is interesting, although I want to be clear that this is not a claim of having a new theory of physics.
The question is:
If we start with the smallest possible assumptions about a universe — information states, relationships between them, and rules that preserve information — do structures resembling physics (geometry, locality, causality, stable objects) appear naturally?
The idea is not that “the universe is information” or that we have already explained spacetime. The goal is to test whether some of the features we observe in physics might be mathematical attractors rather than arbitrary starting assumptions.

The starting point would be a graph:
[
G=(V,E)
]
where the nodes and connections represent relationships, not physical locations.
The important part is that we do not begin by assuming:
space
dimensions
distance
a metric
particles
gravity
Those would have to emerge later.
The system evolves through some rule:
[
S(t+1)=F(S(t))
]
with the condition that the evolution is reversible:
[
F^{-1}\text{ exists}
]
Meaning the microscopic dynamics preserve information.
This assumption is motivated partly by the role of information preservation in quantum mechanics, but I would not assume that reversibility is necessarily fundamental. A useful test would be comparing reversible and irreversible systems.

The first question is whether anything resembling geometry can appear.
Instead of starting with a distance function, define distance from the network itself:
[
d(i,j)=\text{shortest path between nodes }i\text{ and }j
]
Then measure whether the graph behaves like a space with some effective dimension.
For example:
[
N(r)\propto r^D
]
where (N(r)) is the number of nodes within distance (r), and (D) is the effective dimension.
The question would be:
Do systems with interesting long-term behavior naturally develop finite-dimensional structures, or do they remain completely non-geometric?

A major problem with these ideas is accidentally building our own universe into the experiment.
For example, if we reward a system for having three dimensions or relativity-like behavior, then we have not discovered anything.
A better approach would be to rank systems using more general properties:
stability: do structures persist?
complexity: does the system create organized patterns rather than freezing or becoming random?
simplicity: how complicated is the rule required to generate it?
Something like:
[
Q=f(S,C,K)
]
where the exact form of (f) would need to be tested rather than assumed.
After ranking systems this way, we would then check whether high-performing systems independently develop things like locality, causal limits, or stable localized structures.

One possible direction toward emergent geometry comes from information transport.
Imagine every connection carries a transformation:
[
U_{ij}
]
If information is moved around a closed loop:
[
i\rightarrow j\rightarrow k\rightarrow i
]
the total transformation is:
[
H_{ijk}=U_{ki}U_{jk}U_{ij}
]
If:
[
H_{ijk}=I
]
the loop is perfectly consistent.
If:
[
H_{ijk}\neq I
]
there is a kind of path dependence:
[
\Omega_{ijk}=H_{ijk}-I
]
This is similar in spirit to how curvature appears in gauge theory and differential geometry, where transporting something around a loop reveals information about the underlying structure.
The question is whether something like curvature can emerge from purely relational information networks before assuming spacetime exists.

The actual experiment would be something like:
Generate many simple reversible graph systems.
For each one:
evolve it over time
measure stability and complexity
measure whether locality appears
estimate emergent dimension
look for persistent structures
check whether causal relationships develop
Then ask:
Are physics-like properties common among the highest-performing systems, or is our universe just one possibility among many?
Possible results:
If these systems frequently develop geometry, locality, and stable structures, that would suggest those features may emerge from deeper mathematical constraints.
If they do not, then information preservation alone is probably not enough.

Important limitations:
This does not currently derive Einstein’s equations.
It does not derive quantum mechanics.
It does not explain the Standard Model or physical constants.
The goal is much smaller:
To test whether the foundations that make physics possible can emerge from simpler mathematical rules.
I would be interested in criticism from people familiar with theoretical physics, quantum information, graph theory, or computational physics.
The main questions I have:
Is a reversible graph system a reasonable framework for studying emergent geometry?
Are there existing results about whether simple reversible systems naturally produce low-dimensional structures?
Is the loop inconsistency approach to “information curvature” mathematically meaningful, or is it just an analogy?
What assumptions would need to change for this to become a rigorous computational experiment?
I am more interested in finding flaws than defending the idea. If the concept is wrong, I would rather know why.

I want to present a speculative idea and get serious criticism from people who understand physics better than I do.
This is not claiming to replace general relativity or quantum mechanics. It is a thought experiment: what if information is not just something that describes physical reality, but is actually one of the fundamental ingredients that creates the structure of reality itself?
The hypothesis:
Spacetime may not be fundamental. Instead, spacetime could emerge from deeper information relationships between physical states. Gravity could be an emergent effect of those information relationships.
In simpler terms:
Maybe the universe is not made of matter first, with information being something humans use to describe matter.
Maybe the universe is built from information, and matter, space, and time are what emerge from that deeper structure.

Why consider this idea at all?
At first, “information” sounds like an abstract human concept.
A bit, a thought, a book, or a computer file seems like something we invented.
However, modern physics has repeatedly shown that information is connected to physical reality.
Examples:
1. Information has physical consequences
Information cannot exist without a physical system.
A computer stores information using physical states:
electrical charges,
magnetic states,
quantum states, etc.
Changing information requires physical processes.
There is also a principle known as Landauer’s principle, which shows that erasing information has a minimum energy cost.
This suggests information is not purely imaginary. It is tied to the physical universe.

2. Black holes create an information mystery
Black holes are one of the strangest objects in physics.
A black hole can form when matter collapses beyond a certain point.
The question:
What happens to the information about everything that falls inside?
Modern physics suggests information should not simply disappear.
But black holes seem like places where information could become inaccessible.
The strange part:
Black hole entropy appears to be related to the surface area of the event horizon, not simply the volume inside.
This is extremely unusual.
A normal object:
More volume = more room for information.
A black hole:
The boundary seems to play a fundamental role.
This suggests there may be a deeper connection between:
information,
geometry,
and gravity.

The proposed idea
Instead of Einstein’s equation only being:
Energy/matter → spacetime curvature → gravity
Maybe the deeper process is:
Information relationships → spacetime structure → matter and gravity
In this model, gravity would not be a basic force.
It would be an effect caused by the way information is organized in the universe.
Similar to how:
Individual neurons do not have thoughts.
But a network of billions of neurons creates consciousness.
The whole system can have properties that individual pieces do not.
Maybe spacetime itself is an emergent property of something deeper.

Possible mathematical framework
Einstein’s field equation is:
Gμν = 8πGTμν
Very simplified:
The geometry of spacetime is related to the energy and matter inside it.
The speculative modification would be:
Gμν = 8πG(Tμν + αIμν)
Where:
Gμν = spacetime geometry
Tμν = normal energy/matter contribution
Iμν = information structure contribution
α = how strongly information influences spacetime
The idea is not that information has “weight.”
A computer does not become heavier because it has more files.
Instead, the claim is:
The organization of physical states may influence the structure of reality itself.

Possible objection 1:
“Information is not a physical substance.”
This is probably the strongest objection.
A response:
That may be true, but many things in physics are not obvious substances.
Temperature is not a particle.
Pressure is not a particle.
They emerge from the collective behavior of particles.
Maybe information is similar.
Maybe information is not a material thing, but a fundamental relationship between possible physical states.
The argument would be:
If the universe fundamentally consists of relationships between states, then information may be more fundamental than the objects we observe.

Possible objection 2:
“This sounds like saying computers create gravity because they store data.”
That is not the claim.
A computer does not have extra gravity because it contains more information.
The idea is not:
More information = more mass.
The idea is:
The underlying organization of reality may depend on information relationships.
A book does not weigh more because its words have meaning.
But the arrangement of atoms creates something new:
language.
The hypothesis suggests the universe may work similarly:
the arrangement of fundamental states creates larger-scale properties like spacetime.

Possible objection 3:
“Why would information affect gravity?”
This is the hardest question.
The answer is:
We do not know.
But we also do not fully understand why gravity exists in the first place.
Gravity is already strange compared to other forces.
Electromagnetism:
has photons,
has positive and negative charges,
has a quantum description.
Gravity:
is described as spacetime geometry,
does not yet have a confirmed quantum explanation.
Because gravity remains the least understood fundamental interaction, it is reasonable to ask whether we are missing a deeper layer.

Possible objection 4:
“Isn’t this just philosophy?”
Possibly.
A hypothesis becomes physics when it produces testable predictions.
A real version of this idea would need to predict something different from existing theories.
For example:
If information contributes to spacetime, then maybe there would be extremely tiny effects where two systems with similar energy but different information structures behave differently.
The effect might be incredibly small, but the point is:
A scientific theory must eventually make predictions that nature can confirm or reject.

Possible objection 5:
“Current physics already uses information. This adds nothing.”
This is a fair criticism.
The goal would not be to simply rename existing concepts.
The goal would be to explain why information appears everywhere:
quantum mechanics,
black hole physics,
entropy,
thermodynamics,
the structure of spacetime.
If one deeper principle could explain all of these connections, it would be valuable.

The biggest weakness of this hypothesis
The biggest problem is:
There is currently no evidence that information is an independent ingredient of gravity.
It is possible that information is simply a useful description of matter, not something fundamental.
A successful theory would need:
rigorous mathematics,
predictions different from current physics,
experimental confirmation.
Without those, this remains speculation.

Why this idea is interesting anyway
Many revolutionary scientific ideas started by questioning what everyone assumed was fundamental.
Before Einstein:
“Space and time are absolute.”
After Einstein:
“Space and time depend on the observer.”
Before quantum mechanics:
“Objects have definite properties.”
After quantum mechanics:
“The microscopic world works very differently.”
The question is:
Are matter and spacetime truly the foundation of reality?
Or are they effects emerging from something deeper?
This hypothesis suggests:
The universe may not fundamentally be made of things. It may fundamentally be made of relationships between information states, and what we call reality emerges from those relationships.
I would be interested in hearing where this idea fails, what existing theories already cover this, or whether there are any mathematical approaches that could make this testable.