Chronogeometrical Determinism and the Local Present
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In time-oriented Minkowski spacetime let us choose some point or event and call it O. Then for any other point or event e in such a spacetime either (a) e is itself spacelike separated from O or (b) there is some third point e ' which is spacelike separated from both O and e. In case (a) there is some inertial coordinate system in which O and e are assigned the same time coordinate. Another common way of stating this fact, especially in popular books on the special theory of relativity, is that there is some inertial “observer ” for whom O and e are simultaneous. In case (b) there is some inertial coordinate system in which O and e ' are assigned the same time coordinate and a second, different inertial coordinate system in which e' and e are assigned the same time coordinate (according to that second inertial coordinate system). A common alternative way of saying the same thing is that there is an inertial coordinate system F in which O and e ' are simultaneous and a second inertial coordinate system F ' in which e ' and e are simultaneous. These are undisputed facts about (time-oriented) Minkowski spacetime, typically proven in rigorous texts, sometimes given as exercises. From time to time these facts have provoked curious reflections in the minds of reflective physicists and philosophers. What are these curious reflections? If two events are simultaneous, they happen at the same time. If two events happen at the same time, it would seem that it must be the case that if one is actual, determinate, or real (whatever one means by these words), then the other must be actual, determinate, or real as well. Let me suppose that I am at presently located at O. It is difficult to deny that I at present am actual, determinate, or
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it