Does Spacetime Emerge from What We Ask of It?

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

New research suggests that the very fabric of spacetime isn’t a pre-existing stage, but a dynamic construct shaped by the requirements imposed upon it.

This paper proposes a framework where spacetime formation arises from finite constraints and contextual interventions, mirroring quantum-like probability in cognitive systems.

Conventional interpretations of non-classical probability in cognitive systems typically modify the underlying calculus, yet fail to address its fundamental origins. This paper, ‘Spacetime Formation under Requirements: Contextual Realization and Form-Dependent Probability’, proposes an alternative: that quantum-like phenomena arise not from altered probabilities, but from the very process of spacetime formation under finite constraints. Specifically, we demonstrate how requirements like limited representational capacity and contextual intervention necessitate a spacetime structure where classical bookkeeping costs manifest as noncommutativity and interference. If spacetime itself is a product of realizing these requirements-rather than a pre-existing container-what implications does this have for our understanding of objectivity and the nature of reality?

Beyond Fixed Space: The Evolving Fabric of Reality

The very fabric of physical reality, as traditionally understood, relies on the concept of spacetime – a fixed, unchanging arena in which events unfold. However, this assumption of a pre-defined spacetime may represent an oversimplification of nature. Current models often treat spacetime as a passive backdrop, neglecting the possibility that it is, in fact, dynamically shaped by the events occurring within it. This perspective, deeply ingrained in classical physics, struggles to account for phenomena where context – the specific arrangement of observation and interaction – fundamentally alters the observed reality. Recent theoretical work suggests that spacetime might not be a pre-existing entity, but rather an emergent property arising from the relationships between physical systems, implying that the universe doesn’t simply exist within spacetime, but rather creates it through interaction. This shift in perspective has profound implications, potentially requiring a revision of fundamental physical laws to accommodate a universe where spacetime is not absolute, but relative and malleable.

The prevailing framework of physics often presumes a static, pre-defined reality, yet this approach struggles to adequately explain systems where the very act of observation, or the surrounding circumstances, actively participate in defining outcomes. This isn’t merely a matter of incomplete data; rather, the context isn’t a passive backdrop but an integral component of the system itself. Such scenarios, prevalent in quantum mechanics and increasingly recognized in complex systems like biological networks, reveal that properties aren’t inherent but emergent – shaped by interactions and relative to the observer’s frame of reference. Consequently, relying on a fixed-space assumption introduces a fundamental limitation, hindering the ability to accurately model and predict behavior in these context-dependent realities and potentially obscuring underlying principles that govern their function.

The conventional approach to modeling complex systems often relies on what can be termed ‘Classical Bookkeeping’ – a method of meticulously storing and accounting for every contextual detail influencing a given event or state. While effective for simplified scenarios, this technique rapidly becomes computationally prohibitive as complexity increases. Each additional variable, each nuanced interaction, demands exponentially more storage and processing power, quickly exceeding the capabilities of even the most advanced computers. This isn’t merely a limitation of current technology; the very nature of exhaustive contextual storage creates an intractable problem for systems exhibiting a vast number of interdependent variables. Consequently, researchers are exploring alternative frameworks that prioritize efficient information representation and leverage inherent redundancies within complex systems, seeking methods that move beyond the limitations of explicitly ‘remembering’ every detail.

The notion of an objective reality, existing independently of observation, is increasingly challenged by developments in information physics and quantum theory. Current research suggests that reality isn’t simply ‘out there’ waiting to be discovered, but is fundamentally intertwined with the act of description itself-the information used to define and measure it. This isn’t to say reality is subjective, but rather that its very existence, as we understand it, is contingent upon the framework of information that constitutes its description. Consequently, the foundational role traditionally assigned to objective reality warrants re-evaluation; it may be more accurate to view reality and description not as separate entities, but as mutually constitutive aspects of a single, unified process. This perspective necessitates a shift in how scientists approach fundamental questions, potentially leading to novel insights into the nature of existence and the limits of human knowledge.

Constructing Spacetime: A Contextual Foundation

Requirement-First Realization posits a departure from traditional physics by advocating for the initial definition of systemic constraints before postulating a pre-existing spacetime. This approach centers on identifying the fundamental limitations and conditions governing a system – such as conserved quantities, relational dependencies, or operational limitations – and treating these as primary axioms. Consequently, spacetime is not considered a static background but rather an emergent property derived from the interplay of these defined requirements. The implications of this prioritization include the potential for different spacetime topologies and dimensionalities based on varying constraint sets, and challenges the assumption that spacetime is a necessary precondition for physical processes; instead, it becomes a consequence of them.

Contextual Spacetime Formation posits that spacetime is not a pre-existing framework, but rather arises as a consequence of underlying constraints defining a system. This approach deviates from traditional physics by allowing spacetime’s structure to be determined by the specific requirements imposed on the system, rather than being imposed upon it. Consequently, variations in these constraints directly influence the resultant spacetime geometry and topology, potentially yielding configurations not achievable within conventional models. This dynamic emergence offers possibilities for novel representational schemes and physical behaviors, as the constraints themselves dictate the permissible degrees of freedom and interactions within the formed spacetime.

Single-State Contextuality posits that a system’s maintenance of a singular, defined internal state acts as a fundamental constraint on how information can be represented and processed. This constraint directly impacts the permissible degrees of freedom within the system; any representation must be consistent with, and ultimately derived from, this fixed internal state. Consequently, the system’s representational capacity isn’t absolute, but rather conditioned by the requirement to remain within this single state, effectively limiting the possible configurations and interpretations of incoming or internally generated data. This limitation isn’t necessarily restrictive; instead, it provides a defined framework within which novel representations can emerge, anchored by the consistent internal condition.

Transcendental-Operational Realism posits that reality is not a pre-existing structure but is instead constituted by the intersection of fundamental constraints and the operational procedures used to define and measure it. This framework rejects the notion of an observer-independent reality, instead suggesting that reality emerges through the interaction of limitations-defining what is possible-and the specific methods employed to ascertain those possibilities. Constraints, in this context, are not simply limitations on reality, but are constitutive of it; they define the boundaries within which observation and measurement can occur. Operational definitions, specifying how quantities are measured and defined, are equally crucial, as they determine how reality is accessed and understood. Therefore, reality, under this realism, is neither purely objective nor subjective, but a product of both inherent limitations and the practical means of investigation.

Quantum-Like Dynamics: Echoes of Context in Reality

Contextual Spacetime Formation, when extended to incorporate quantum probability, necessitates a shift from deterministic descriptions to probabilistic frameworks. This integration introduces non-commutativity, meaning the order of operations affects the outcome; A \cdot B \neq B \cdot A . Specifically, the spacetime geometry itself is no longer defined by fixed coordinates but by probability distributions over possible configurations. These distributions are governed by operators that do not necessarily commute, leading to uncertainty in spacetime measurements and a fundamental departure from classical notions of locality and determinism. The resulting mathematical formalism utilizes probability amplitudes and superposition principles to describe the evolution of spacetime, mirroring the core tenets of quantum mechanics applied to the very fabric of reality.

Within the ‘Contextual Spacetime Formation’ framework, the observation of an ‘Interference Term’ and ‘Holonomy-like Mismatch’ suggests correlations exceeding those explainable by classical physics. The ‘Interference Term’ arises from the superposition of alternative contextual paths, manifesting as probabilistic deviations from expected outcomes. ‘Holonomy-like Mismatch’ refers to discrepancies accumulating through sequential contextual transitions, analogous to the geometric phase acquired in quantum mechanics but occurring within the logic of contextual relationships. These effects are quantified as deviations from classical Boolean logic and indicate that the system’s state is not fully determined by local information, providing evidence for non-classical, context-dependent correlations between system elements.

The concept of ‘Local Logic-Worlds’ posits that reality isn’t a monolithic structure, but emerges from the interaction of discrete domains, each governed by a limited set of logical constraints. These individual domains, representing localized systems with specific rules, are not necessarily complex in themselves; their intricacy arises from their contextual interactions. Through these interactions – defined by shared boundaries and exchange of information – simple local rules combine to produce global behaviors and emergent properties not present in any single domain. This process allows for the creation of complex, multi-layered realities from fundamentally simple building blocks, demonstrating that complexity isn’t necessarily predicated on inherent intricacy within the constituent parts, but rather on the nature of their interrelation and the constraints governing those interactions.

Gödelian incompleteness, as applied to the formation of contextual worlds, posits that within any formal axiomatic system capable of expressing basic arithmetic, there will always exist true statements that are unprovable within that system. This principle extends to the emergent systems arising from local logic-world domains; the inherent complexity generated through contextual interactions means a complete and consistent formal description of the system is impossible. Specifically, any attempt to fully define the rules governing these interactions will necessarily be limited, as the system’s behavior will always exceed the capacity of its formal definition, mirroring the undecidability demonstrated by Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. This isn’t a flaw in the system, but a fundamental characteristic of complex emergence from simple constraints.

Implications for Understanding Reality: A Shifting Paradigm

The notion of an independently existing, objective reality is challenged by this framework, which posits that reality emerges from the interplay of observation and contextual conditions. This emergent nature of objective reality lends support to the concept of ‘Intersubjective Transformability’, suggesting that what is perceived as real isn’t a fixed entity but is, in part, shaped by the collective observations and finite-state realizations of conscious entities. Consequently, reality isn’t simply observed; it actively coalesces through observation, implying a dynamic relationship where the observer isn’t a passive recipient of information but an integral component in the very construction of what is considered real. This challenges traditional views of objectivity, proposing instead that reality is fundamentally relational and subject to transformation based on the shared, contextualized experiences of observers.

The conventional understanding of spacetime as a fixed, independent entity is challenged by the concept of ‘Contextual Spacetime’. This framework posits that spacetime isn’t merely a stage upon which events unfold, but is itself dynamically shaped by observation and the specific conditions present within a given context. Instead of a universal, pre-existing grid, spacetime emerges as a relational construct, its properties – including dimensionality and metric – becoming defined through interactions and the finite information processing capacity of systems within it. This suggests that the very fabric of reality is not absolute, but a contextualized manifestation, influenced by the act of measurement and the limitations inherent in realizing any physical system. Consequently, differing observers, or systems with varying contextual parameters, may experience subtly – or even drastically – different spacetime geometries, implying a nuanced and observer-dependent universe.

The concept of ‘Contextual Intervention’ posits that spacetime isn’t a static backdrop, but rather a dynamically forming structure susceptible to influence through observation and action. This framework suggests that the very act of measurement or interaction isn’t simply revealing a pre-existing reality, but actively participating in its construction. Studies indicate that specific interventions – defined as carefully controlled observations or actions within a defined context – can demonstrably alter the probabilistic outcomes observed within that spacetime. This isn’t manipulation in the traditional sense, but a fundamental interplay where the observer’s contextual choices shape the emergent possibilities, highlighting a reciprocal relationship between the subject and the observed phenomena and challenging conventional notions of objective reality as entirely independent of observation.

The research detailed within this paper challenges conventional understandings of quantum probability, positing it not as an inherent characteristic of cognitive processes, but as a consequence of limitations imposed by finite computational capacity and the very structure of spacetime. Instead of assuming the brain utilizes fundamental quantum probabilities, the framework demonstrates how probabilistic behavior emerges when complex systems-like the brain-attempt to model reality within a spacetime that is itself contextually defined and realized through finite states. This suggests that the observed probabilities aren’t originating from cognition, but are a byproduct of how information is processed and represented within the constraints of a limited system operating within a malleable spacetime – a shift in perspective with implications for fields ranging from neuroscience to fundamental physics.

The pursuit of contextual spacetime formation, as detailed in the paper, echoes a fundamental principle of system design: structure dictates behavior. If the underlying ‘spacetime’ – the very arena of realization – emerges from requirements, then its architecture isn’t a passive backdrop but an active determinant of probabilistic outcomes. This resonates with the observation that if a system looks clever, it’s probably fragile; a complex attempt to predefine spacetime, rather than allowing it to organically form from constraints, invites instability. As John McCarthy aptly stated, “Artificial intelligence is the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs.” The paper suggests a similar principle applies to reality itself – intelligence, or perhaps ‘realization,’ isn’t imposed onto a pre-existing framework, but is the framework’s emergence.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The proposition that spacetime emerges from the realization of requirements, rather than serving as a pre-existing stage, shifts the fundamental question. It is no longer about quantum mechanics within spacetime, but about the conditions under which spacetime itself coheres. The immediate challenge lies in operationalizing this ‘realization.’ Current formulations treat contextuality as an analogy; future work must demonstrate how finite constraints genuinely sculpt the geometric fabric. This demands a move beyond simply mapping quantum formalisms onto cognitive architectures, and instead a careful dissection of the informational costs associated with maintaining coherence under limitation.

A critical, and often overlooked, aspect is the inherent trade-off between fidelity and tractability. As the number of requirements increases, the computational burden of ‘realizing’ spacetime will inevitably grow. The system doesn’t simply become more complex; it becomes less stable. This suggests a principle of minimal sufficient structure: spacetime adopts the simplest form consistent with fulfilling its immediate demands. The elegance of this idea, however, belies the difficulty in quantifying ‘simplicity’ within a dynamic, requirement-driven system. Cleverness will not scale; the architecture must be invisible until it breaks, revealing the underlying constraints.

Ultimately, the true cost isn’t the complexity of the model, but the dependencies it introduces. Every abstraction leaks, and the notion of a ‘context’ implies an outside observer – a dangerous conceptual intrusion. The path forward necessitates a self-contained framework, one where spacetime is not explained by context, but is context – a dynamic, self-defining network of requirements and their realizations. This is not merely a problem for physics or cognition, but a question of fundamental ontological economy.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.23943.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2026-05-26 18:07