Is the local linearity of space-time inherited from the linearity of probabilities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The appearance of linear spaces, describing physical quantities by vectors and tensors, is ubiquitous in all of physics, from classical mechanics to the modern notion of local Lorentz invariance. However, as natural as this seems to the physicist, most computer scientists would argue that something like a ‘local linear tangent space’ is not very typical and in fact a quite surprising property of any conceivable world or algorithm. In this paper, we take the perspective of the computer scientist seriously, and ask whether there could be any inherently information-theoretic reason to expect this notion of linearity to appear in physics. We give a series of simple arguments, spanning quantum information theory, group representation theory, and renormalization in quantum gravity, that supports a surprising thesis: namely, that the local linearity of space-time might ultimately be a consequence of the linearity of probabilities. While our arguments involve a fair amount of speculation, they have the virtue of being independent of any detailed assumptions on quantum gravity, and they are in harmony with several independent recent ideas on emergent space-time in high-energy physics.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".