Can quantum gravity be both consistent and complete?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
General relativity, despite its profound successes, fails as a complete theory due to presence of singularities. While it is widely believed that quantum gravity has the potential to be a complete theory, in which spacetime consistently emerges from quantum degrees of freedom through computational algorithms, we argue that this goal could be fundamentally unattainable. We examine how this limitation could emerge in various contexts, depending on whether or not every mathematically valid result is physically realized. In the first case, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, along with related results by Tarski and Chaitin, imply that no theory formulated as a formal axiomatic system can be complete, and that within any computational framework, a fully consistent internal truth predicate is impossible. In the second case, if only a subset of mathematical truths is realized in nature, we argue that this selection cannot be determined by any purely computational process. Hence, a meta-theoretical approach based on nonalgorithmic understanding is indispensable in every case. We discuss some possible consequences of this observation for describing physical systems and note that a nonalgorithmic approach should be essential for any theory of everything.
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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".