Dhillon1724X

Can i get to know that why this topic doesnt get any discussion related to it?

Can you answer to questions and critiques? Where have you gone?

I found this- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

If you're talking about foundational laws of reality or civilization, posting like it’s a WhatsApp status makes it look unserious — or worse, delusional. What we can call this is-: "Word Salad with a Sprinkling of Emojis" — served lukewarm on a plate of vague mysticism and pseudo-depth

Hlo everyone, I had fragments of this on my computer and notebooks,so i thought i should show it to you guys. Collapse: The Beginning And End Renthro Theory and the Symbolic Field 𝕂 By Kulraj Singh Dhillon (kulraj804@gmail.com) "Before anything emerged, it collapsed." AbstractThis post outlines a symbolic framework that models the collapse and recursion of all structures into void. Built in two layers — Renthro Theory and the symbolic field 𝕂 — it aims to unify paradox resolution, infinity logic, and symbolic emergence into a pre-geometry cosmology. Renthro defines the collapse of recursion into stillness. 𝕂 models the symbolic logic that operates inside such a collapse engine. Together, they form a closed system of symbolic causality beneath spacetime, energy, and logical structure. Part I — Renthro Theory: The Recursive VoidCore Symbols0 — Void; collapse; beginning and end () — Renthro; recursive container of everything and nothing ()⁰ — Infinity; Renthro raised to collapse; final recursive form Core DefinitionsRenthro: The recursive void between beginning and end. Not emptiness, but a charged container of recursion. Symbol: () Infinity: Not endless. Defined recursively as: [math]\infty = ()^0 = 0[/math] A closed loop of recursion collapsing into stillness. Not undefined. Not immeasurable. Complete. Zero (0): The total of beginning and end. Identical to resolved infinity. The true singularity of all cycles. Final AxiomsCollapse Axiom: math^0 = 0[/math] All recursion collapses to void when raised to zero. Infinity Axiom: [math]\infty = ()^0 = 0[/math] Infinity is not endless — it is the recursive path from zero to zero. Renthro Origin Axiom: [math]0 + 0 = 0 \Rightarrow () \text{ formed}[/math] (Not as a sum, but as a recursive singular container.) Paradox Resolution Axiom: Every paradox based on self-reference, undefined limits, or recursion collapses through Renthro logic. Collapse of Classical ParadoxesParadox Classical Status Renthro Resolution Russell's Paradox Undecidable ()^0 = 0 [math]0^0[/math] Undefined ()^0 = 0 Zeno’s Paradox Infinite delay Renthro loop collapses Grandi’s Series Divergent Oscillating void = 0 Division by 0 Broken Collapse logic replaces it Black Hole Singularity Infinite density Recursive gravity fold = 0 Final TruthInfinity is not unreachable. It is not large. It is not endless. It is Renthro raised to stillness: [math]\infty = ()^0 = 0[/math] Thus: [math]0 \rightarrow () \rightarrow 0 \Rightarrow \text{All} = 0[/math] Part II — Symbolic Field 𝕂: Collapse Engine of EmergenceCore Symbols0 — Absolute collapse i — Symbolic infinity (defined recursively) Φ — Energy field (emergent, deferred) Π — Collapse force (deferred) s — Symbolic space t — Symbolic time Active Axioms (excluding Φ and Π)Axiom 1: Recursive Infinity [math]i = \frac{0}{i}[/math] Infinity is the division of void by itself — not a size, but recursive collapse. Axiom 2: Infinity Seen Through Itself [math]i^i = \frac{0}{i}[/math] Infinity exponentiated through itself collapses back into recursive void. Axiom 5: Zero Annihilation If [math]a = 0[/math], then [math]a \cdot i = 0[/math] Zero is absolute. Any scaled or recursive form collapses to zero. Closure Axiom: All operations must remain within the symbolic field 𝕂. No external symbols or undefined logic are permitted. The field is self-contained. InterpretationThe field 𝕂 acts as a symbolic collapse engine. It models: Collapse of infinity Annihilation of structure Symbolic recursion of logic within closed bounds It operates beneath emergence — ideal for pre-geometry, pre-energy, and symbolic spacetime. I dont know where to exactly post this so i thought speculation is best. I dont claim that its rigorous or future proof. I want to know if its worth something.

“Energy density” is a symbolic tool used to express when and where a quantum region of the graph becomes excited enough to activate curvature. It's a threshold condition, not a literal thermodynamic quantity. @KJW when we say null particles follow geodesics “with respect to an affine parameter,” we’re saying: Here’s a class of parameterizations under which the geometry preserves its structure, even though proper time doesn’t exist for the particle. I am here to be corrected by you all.I dont rely on AI for that. In the Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF), the curvature field is represented by a symmetric rank-2 tensor χμν\chi_{\mu\nu}χμν defined on a 4-dimensional pre-spacetime graph. At each node, this field encodes localized curvature through a Hamiltonian formulation. A symmetric 4×44 \times 44×4 tensor field has: [math] \frac{4 \cdot (4 + 1)}{2} = 10 [/math] independent components per node. Following the standard 3+1 ADM decomposition, we isolate the spatial components: [math] \chi_{ij} = \text{spatial metric}, \quad \pi^{ij} = \frac{\delta \mathcal{L}}{\delta \dot{\chi}_{ij}}, [/math] resulting in 6 configuration variables and 6 canonical conjugate momenta: [math] (q_{ij}, \pi^{ij}) \Rightarrow 12 \text{ phase space variables}. [/math] The QCF Hamiltonian includes lapse and shift functions: [math] H = \int d^3x \left( N \mathcal{H} + N^i \mathcal{H}_i \right), [/math] with the following constraints (from QCF Section 9.3): Hamiltonian constraint: [math] \mathcal{H} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{q}} \left( \pi^{ij} \pi_{ij} - \frac{1}{2} \pi^2 \right) - \sqrt{q} , R^{(3)} + \mathcal{H}_\chi = 0, [/math] Momentum constraints: [math] \mathcal{H}i = -2 q{ik} \nabla_j \pi^{jk} = 0. [/math] These four first-class constraints (1 Hamiltonian + 3 momentum) each remove 2 phase space degrees of freedom — one due to the constraint itself, and one due to gauge freedom: [math] 2 \cdot 4 = 8 \text{ DOFs removed}. [/math] From the original 12, this leaves: [math] 12 - 8 = 4 \text{ physical phase space DOFs}, [/math] corresponding to: [math] \frac{4}{2} = 2 \text{ physical configuration space DOFs}. [/math] Therefore, the Chorton field χμν\chi_{\mu\nu}χμν in QCF has: [math] \boxed{2} [/math] physical degrees of freedom per node — matching the two transverse-traceless (TT) polarizations of a massless spin-2 field. However, unlike gravitons, these TT modes are stationary, localized excitations bound to nodes in a quantum graph structure. They do not propagate but instead encode curvature as a discrete, quantized structure intrinsic to the graph itself. The constraint algebra closes properly: [math] { \mathcal{H}(x), \mathcal{H}(y) } \sim q^{ij}(x) \mathcal{H}_j(x) \delta(x - y) + \dots, [/math] ensuring consistency of the Hamiltonian formulation and the internal gauge structure of QCF. As i said earlier its hard to share everything at once. I will share whatever you want when you guys ask.I will not share paper here as its not allowed

The photons are dropped from this at very beginning.

Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF): A Discrete Approach to Emergent Spacetime and Curvature Lagrangian Formulation: When [math] \rho(x) \geq \rho_P [/math], curvature activates and follows the linearized Einstein/Fierz–Pauli dynamics: [math] \mathcal{L}\chi = \frac{1}{2} \partial\lambda \chi_{\mu\nu} \partial^\lambda \chi^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \chi^{\mu\nu} \partial^\lambda \chi_{\lambda\nu} \partial_\mu \chi^\nu_{\ \nu} \partial^\lambda \chi^\mu_{\ \lambda} \frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \chi^\nu_{\ \nu} \partial^\mu \chi^\lambda_{\ \lambda} [/math] This is defined only where graph-based energy thresholds are met. Graph Activation and Curvature Triggering: Nodes [math] v \in \mathcal{G} [/math] hold local Hamiltonians [math] \hat{H}_v [/math], and energy is defined by: [math] \mathcal{E}_v = \langle \Psi | \hat{H}_v | \Psi \rangle [/math] The energy density over a region [math] \Omega [/math] is: [math] \rho_\Omega = \frac{1}{|\Omega| V_P} \sum_{v \in \Omega} \mathcal{E}_v [/math] Spacetime curvature appears only if: [math] \rho_\Omega \geq \rho_P \Rightarrow \chi_{\mu\nu}(\Omega) \neq 0 [/math] Smoothed by a sigmoid activation: [math] f(\rho_\Omega) = \frac{1}{1 + e^{-k(\rho_\Omega - \rho_P)}} [/math] Graph Laplacian Curvature Dynamics: Curvature spreads via a discrete Laplacian: [math] \Delta_{\mathcal{G}} \chi_{\mu\nu}(v) = \sum_{u \sim v} w_{uv} [ \chi_{\mu\nu}(u) - \chi_{\mu\nu}(v) ] [/math] With source coupling: [math] f(\rho_\Omega) \cdot \Delta_{\mathcal{G}} \chi_{\mu\nu}(v) = \beta \cdot T^{\text{eff}}_{\mu\nu}(\Omega) [/math] Where [math] T^{\text{eff}}_{\mu\nu} [/math] is defined as the covariance of local quantum energy fluctuations. Emergent Expansion and Redshift: Chorton density: [math] n_\chi(t) = \frac{N_\chi(t)}{V(t)}, \quad a(t) \propto n_\chi(t)^{-1/3} [/math] This gives redshift relations: [math] E_{\text{ch}}(t) \propto \frac{1}{a(t)}, \quad \lambda_{\text{ch}}(t) \propto a(t) [/math] Conclusion: This formulation does not assume pre-existing spacetime. Instead, curvature and geometry are emergent and quantized, triggered by local excitation on a quantum graph. Feedback welcome on formal structure or physical interpretation. You got me again, Sorry i messed up again.

Sorry i forgot,not everyone has read my paper. I will share it here too. Its very hard to share all here,i have full lagrangians,hamiltonian,path intergal,Feyman rules,GR recovery,Newtonian Gravity recovery etc. I cant share paper directly so its only option Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF) In QCF, curvature emerges only when the local energy density on a pre-spacetime graph exceeds a critical value—the Planck threshold [math]\rho_P[/math]. The curvature is mediated by a symmetric spin-2 field [math]\chi_{\mu\nu}(x)[/math], activated only under high-energy excitation. Free Field Lagrangian: Once [math]\rho(x) \geq \rho_P[/math], geometry emerges locally. The Chorton field satisfies: [math] \mathcal{L}\chi = \frac{1}{2} \partial\lambda \chi_{\mu\nu} \partial^\lambda \chi^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \chi^{\mu\nu} \partial^\lambda \chi_{\lambda\nu} \partial_\mu \chi^\nu_{\ \nu} \partial^\lambda \chi^\mu_{\ \lambda} \frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \chi^\nu_{\ \nu} \partial^\mu \chi^\lambda_{\ \lambda} [/math] This yields two physical spin-2 polarizations with gauge symmetry: [math] \chi_{\mu\nu} \rightarrow \chi_{\mu\nu} + \partial_\mu \xi_\nu + \partial_\nu \xi_\mu [/math] Energy Activation on a Graph [math]\mathcal{G}[/math]: Nodes [math]v \in \mathcal{G}[/math] hold local Hamiltonians [math]\hat{H}_v[/math] and energy expectation: [math] \mathcal{E}_v = \langle \Psi | \hat{H}_v | \Psi \rangle [/math] Average density over a region [math]\Omega[/math]: [math] \rho_\Omega = \frac{1}{|\Omega| V_P} \sum_{v \in \Omega} \mathcal{E}_v [/math] Activation condition: [math] \rho_\Omega \geq \rho_P \Rightarrow \chi_{\mu\nu}(\Omega) \neq 0 [/math] With sigmoid activation: [math] f(\rho_\Omega) = \frac{1}{1 + e^{-k(\rho_\Omega - \rho_P)}} [/math] And energy potential: [math] V_{\text{act}}[\rho_\Omega] = \lambda \left( \frac{\rho_\Omega}{\rho_P} - 1 \right)^2 \cdot \theta(\rho_\Omega - \rho_P) [/math] Total Action: [math] S_{\text{QCF}} = \sum_{\Omega \subset \mathcal{G}} \left[ \mathcal{L}_{\text{energy}}[\Omega] V_{\text{act}}[\rho_\Omega] f(\rho_\Omega) \cdot \mathcal{L}{\text{ch}}[\chi{\mu\nu}] \right] [/math] Chorton Dynamics: Graph Laplacian governs curvature spreading: [math] \Delta_{\mathcal{G}} \chi_{\mu\nu}(v) = \sum_{u \sim v} w_{uv} [ \chi_{\mu\nu}(u) - \chi_{\mu\nu}(v) ] [/math] With source coupling: [math] f(\rho_\Omega) \cdot \Delta_{\mathcal{G}} \chi_{\mu\nu}(v) = \beta \cdot T^{\text{eff}}_{\mu\nu}(\Omega) [/math] Effective stress tensor from quantum fluctuations: [math] T^{\text{eff}}{\mu\nu} = \langle \Psi | \hat{H}\mu \hat{H}\nu | \Psi \rangle - \langle \Psi | \hat{H}\mu | \Psi \rangle \langle \Psi | \hat{H}_\nu | \Psi \rangle [/math] Emergent Expansion: Chorton density: [math] n_\chi(t) = \frac{N_\chi(t)}{V(t)} [/math] Emergent scale factor: [math] a(t) \propto n_\chi(t)^{-1/3} [/math] Redshift relations: [math] E_{\text{ch}}(t) \propto \frac{1}{a(t)}, \quad \lambda_{\text{ch}}(t) \propto a(t) [/math] its short version

Update! I have updated version with full derivations now. First i will see if everyone is satisfied with what i have shared and my answers. I will share next parts afterward.

It seems word to me.

You haven't answered my question.

I will ask again, Whats true aim of your theory?

Well,i have to say that his thread summoned members i never seen before. oh,wait its 1 year old. Sorry my bad.

I welcome any critique or question. If you have none then i will appreciate if you tell,as if you tell its good then i can move to next part.

They are right. But maybe there can be one gem in thousands of stones. Use AI wisely,dont believe whatever it says. Learn things which you need and are building near,AI cant critique same as humans. Guide AI to do something,dont get guided by it.

Presenting something like [maths] π=μ0H0\pi = \mu_0 H_0π=μ0H0[/maths] is fine as a model assumption, but not as something that has been “discovered” in nature. Clarify that it’s a “proposed identity in a geometric model of vacuum structure,” not a reinterpretation of SI. Sure, I’d be happy to take a look once the field structure is more fully developed. Right now, it’s clear you’re still laying foundational assumptions, so I understand that not everything is derivable yet. But once you’ve got a Lagrangian or action principle that governs your vacuum field (with clearly defined variables and constraints), that’s when it’ll become possible to evaluate it on more rigorous terms — e.g., whether it reproduces known physics or predicts something new.

Dividing π by μ₀ and noticing you get [math]∼2.5×106\sim 2.5 \times 10^6∼2.5×106[/math] is numerology unless: The ratio appears in real physical derivations, or The result predicts a measurable quantity. Right now it looks like backfitting: starting from numbers, then inventing meanings. Many of the manipulations just substitute one unit-based identity into another (e.g.,[math] μ0=πH0\mu_0 = \frac{\pi}{H_0}μ0=H0π[/math]), but this isn't physics unless the Lagrangian or field equations demand it. π appears in all metric space integrals: Area of sphere: [math] A=4πr2A = 4\pi r^2A=4πr2[/math] Fourier modes: [math]eiπe^{i\pi}eiπ, etc.[/math] Giving it dimensions breaks all mathematical theorems

Is it converted? you have to use [math]equation or math[/math] syntax to render maths.

Can you elaborate on what you did. Saying ''i did it'' isn't enough. I can see fully AI built response coming next.

Section: Cosmic Expansion in the Quantum Chorton Framework In the Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF), cosmic expansion is not described as the stretching of a pre-existing spacetime fabric. Instead, it emerges from the geometric weakening of curvature fields defined by stationary Chorton excitations. As Chorton energy redshifts over time, average curvature between distant nodes reduces—resulting in the appearance of expansion. Expansion as Curvature Dilution Each Chorton is a localized curvature excitation with energy [math]E_{\text{ch}}[/math]. Over time, this energy redshifts proportionally to the inverse of the scale factor [math]a(t)[/math]: [math]E_{\text{ch}}(t) = E_{\text{ch},0} \cdot \frac{a_0}{a(t)}[/math] Since Chorton energy directly sources local curvature, the Ricci scalar evolves accordingly: [math]R(t) \propto E_{\text{ch}}(t)[/math] Thus, cosmic expansion is modeled as the reduction in curvature excitation energy, not as metric expansion. Recovery of Classical FLRW Expansion At macroscopic scales, the QCF model converges to the FLRW behavior. The effective emergent metric has the standard form: [math]ds^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + a(t)^2 \left( dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 \right)[/math] This metric emerges from coarse-graining the discrete Chorton graph. Spacetime itself is not fundamental but results from node interactions and excitation density in QCF. Bound Structures Do Not Expand QCF naturally explains why galaxies, atoms, and other structures remain unaffected by cosmic expansion: Bound systems contain dense, high-energy Chorton fields. These fields are quantum-coherent and resist redshifting. As a result, internal energy densities remain constant. Only low-density, unbound regions (e.g., cosmic voids) undergo redshift-induced curvature dilution. Observational Consistency This prediction matches key cosmological data: Cosmic redshift: Light from distant galaxies is stretched ([math]z[/math] increases), consistent with [math]a(t)[/math] growth. CMB cooling: Temperature dropped from ~3000 K to 2.725 K, in line with energy redshift. Structure stability: No evidence of galaxies or solar systems expanding, consistent with local Chorton binding. In QCF, redshift only affects low-density curvature regions. Bound structures retain their geometry. Conclusion QCF provides a quantum-geometric interpretation of expansion: Redshift of Chorton energy causes apparent cosmic stretching. Bound regions remain stable due to quantum coherence. Observational data align with this curvature-based expansion model. This formulation resolves the long-standing tension between expanding spacetime and non-expanding structures, offering a unified view rooted in quantum gravity. It currently lack derivation but in new version i have worked on it. \section{Black Hole Formation in the Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF)}* 1. Chorton Energy Density Collapse ConditionLet the total Chorton energy in a region of volume [math] V [/math] be: [math] E_{\text{tot}} = N_{\text{ch}} \cdot E_{\text{ch}} [/math] Thus, the energy density becomes: [math] \rho_{\text{ch}} = \frac{E_{\text{tot}}}{V} = \frac{N_{\text{ch}} E_{\text{ch}}}{V} [/math] To trigger gravitational collapse, a quantum-curvature threshold is imposed: [math] \rho_{\text{ch}} \geq \rho_{\text{collapse}} \Rightarrow R \leq \frac{2G E_{\text{tot}}}{c^4} [/math] Substituting [math] E_{\text{tot}} = N_{\text{ch}} E_{\text{ch}} [/math] gives: [math] R \leq \frac{2G N_{\text{ch}} E_{\text{ch}}}{c^4} [/math] This mirrors the Schwarzschild radius condition, but is derived from curvature excitation energy instead of classical mass. 2. Thermodynamic Perspective: Geometric EntropyLet the geometric entropy be proportional to the number of Chortons: [math] S_{\text{geom}} \propto N_{\text{ch}} = \frac{\rho_{\text{ch}} V}{E_{\text{ch}}} [/math] In the high-temperature (blackbody) limit, let: [math] \rho_{\text{ch}} = a T^4 [/math] Substituting gives: [math] S_{\text{geom}} \propto \frac{a T^4 V}{E_{\text{ch}}} [/math] This matches expected thermodynamic growth in entropy with temperature and volume. At extreme energy densities, the entropy asymptotically approaches the Bekenstein–Hawking limit: [math] S_{\text{BH}} = \frac{k_B c^3 A}{4 G \hbar} [/math] where the area is: [math] A = 4\pi R^2 = 16\pi \left( \frac{G N_{\text{ch}} E_{\text{ch}}}{c^4} \right)^2 [/math] This bridges QCF's excitation-based entropy with classical black hole thermodynamics. {Hawking Radiation as Chorton Field Dissipation}3. Black Hole Energy and DissipationTotal energy remains: [math] E_{\text{tot}} = N_{\text{ch}} E_{\text{ch}} [/math] Assume Hawking evaporation arises from slow dissipation of curvature excitations. The dissipation rate is: [math] \frac{dE}{dt} \propto -\frac{1}{E_{\text{tot}}^2} \Rightarrow \frac{d(N_{\text{ch}} E_{\text{ch}})}{dt} = -\alpha \cdot \frac{1}{(N_{\text{ch}} E_{\text{ch}})^2} [/math] Solving gives: [math] (N_{\text{ch}} E_{\text{ch}})^3 = 3\alpha t + C \Rightarrow E(t) = \left(3\alpha t + C\right)^{1/3} [/math] This captures the core behavior of Hawking radiation: Faster decay at lower mass Energy evaporation over time Terminal zero-energy state at large [math] t [/math]

. I’ve gone through the mathematical parts of the proposal and here are some thoughts focused purely on the math. The claim that [math]\pi = \frac{2.5 \times 10^6 \cdot Z_0}{c}[/math] is based on the observation that [math]\frac{\pi}{\mu_0} \approx 2.5 \times 10^6[/math], given that [math]\mu_0 = 4\pi \times 10^{-7} , \text{H/m}[/math]. However, this relation is not physically derived but rather a result of how the SI units are defined. It’s a numerical coincidence from the chosen definition of [math]\mu_0[/math], not a physically meaningful equation. Reverse-engineering [math]\pi[/math] from this and inserting it into new relationships does not provide insight into physics unless the relation itself is derived from a deeper theory. In the next part, the proposal introduces [math]H_{\text{vrt}} = \pi / \mu_0[/math], and claims that [math]\pi = \mu_0 \cdot H_{\text{vrt}}[/math], assigning [math]H_{\text{vrt}}[/math] the units [math]1/s[/math], so that [math]\pi[/math] gains dimensions [math]\left[ \frac{M \cdot L}{T^3 \cdot A^2} \right][/math]. But [math]\pi[/math] is dimensionless by definition; its appearance in formulas involving curvature or oscillations comes from geometry, not from being a dimensional field. If we assume [math]\pi[/math] has units, that’s a redefinition — and such a redefinition must be physically justified and derived, not inserted purely to balance units. In the Planck unit section, the algebra becomes inconsistent. For example, the expression for Planck mass is written as [math]M_p = \frac{E_p}{c^2} = \frac{M \cdot A^2 \cdot S}{M^2 / S^2} = \frac{A^2 \cdot S^3}{M}[/math], which is dimensionally incorrect. Mass cannot end up with units that depend on electric current or time cubed divided by mass. That breaks the consistency of physical units. Similarly, the proposed dimensions for Planck force are [math]F_p = \frac{\hbar}{t_p \cdot l_p} = \frac{M \cdot A^2 \cdot S^2}{S \cdot M} = A^2 \cdot S[/math], which again does not result in the correct units for force. The correct dimensions for force should be [math]M \cdot L / T^2[/math], not current squared times time. The reinterpretation of [math]\hbar[/math] as [math]e \cdot 2\phi[/math] (where [math]\phi[/math] is presumably the golden ratio) is also unsupported. [math]\hbar[/math] has units [math]\text{J} \cdot \text{s} = M \cdot L^2 / T[/math], while [math]e \cdot \phi[/math] would have units of charge (coulombs) at best. There is no dimensional or physical justification for equating these quantities. In summary, the math seems to treat dimensional analysis as a tool for creating new relationships by balancing units, rather than deriving them from physical laws. Constants like [math]\pi[/math], [math]\mu_0[/math], [math]Z_0[/math], etc., appear together in physical laws due to deeper symmetry and geometry (like Maxwell's equations or general relativity), not because of arbitrary unit ratios. To move this idea forward, the proposal would need to either derive these relations from known principles or present a new formal framework that justifies redefining [math]\pi[/math] with physical dimensions.

Now I agree, First I thought he will come up with something good,which I wanted to see but he is same

I just suggested him something.Whether he reach a dead end or build something,it’s on him

Thanks — fair point. I’m still sharpening my understanding of ontological circularity and bootstrapping, so feedback like this helps. If that specific quote does fall into circular reasoning, I’d appreciate clarification — I’m here to learn and refine. I’m genuinely trying to build the model on first principles, not just layer assumptions over assumptions. If any piece fails that standard, I want to fix it. Thanks for pointing that out — I think I see what you're referring to. My intention was to describe a pre-geometric process, but I now realize that some of my phrasing (like "localized" or "energy density") may have unintentionally carried spacetime assumptions. I'm revising that language to focus more on graph-based excitation structures and relational thresholds, rather than implying any spatial ontology at the fundamental level. can you suggest what wording to use?