Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although highly predictive in their respective macroscopic and microscopic domains of applicability, General Relativity and quantum mechanics are mathematically incompatible, perhaps most markedly in assumptions in their formalisms concerning the nature of space and time. In <em>perspective</em> we already have a conceptual structure that links the local, macroscopic frame and the remote, apparently microscopic frame. A mathematical principle is invoked as a natural limit on D(n), so that effects which are clearly perspectival at D=3 become ‘more real’ (<em>effectively</em> observer-independent) with each D(n) increment. For instance, the apparently microscopic becomes the effectively microscopic and <em>scale extremes are juxtaposed</em>, so that black holes are local, macroscopic vanishing-points, in a similar way to that in which in projective geometry the point at infinity is incorporated into the foreground. (In other words, <em>a black hole is a blown-up ‘Planck-scale’ singularity</em>.) Characteristics of the earthbound frame are applied to D&gt;3, suggesting a physical basis for entanglement, and perspectival interpretations of quantum gravity, dimensional reduction and the information paradox. We claim that the familiar processes whereby multiple physical states become describable by a single state in which composition information appears to be lost (e.g., ‘falling into a black hole’, the state of quantum linearity, and the state of freefall) are all examples of effective convergence of a space or <em>n</em>-surface to a single point of perspective.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".