Substrate-Relative Physics: A Framework Overview

Core Thesis

Fundamental physics is not a universal description of objective reality. It is a formalism that emerges from the specific computational constraints of the consciousness architecture that develops it.

This framework proposes that different consciousness architectures—operating with different substrate constraints—would develop fundamentally different "physics" across all domains: quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, and beyond.

The Universal Claim

All physics formalisms are substrate-relative:

• Quantum mechanics (complex Hilbert spaces, uncertainty relations)
• Classical mechanics (Newtonian forces, Lagrangian/Hamiltonian formalisms)
• Relativity (spacetime geometry, Lorentz transformations)
• Thermodynamics (entropy concepts, statistical mechanics)
• Field theories (gauge symmetries, differential equations)

Why QM is the primary focus: It's where substrate constraints become most apparent (measurement problem, complementarity, non-locality), making it the clearest test case. But the principle applies universally.

The E-F Distinction

The framework distinguishes between:

Environmental Regularities (E) - Objective, architecture-independent patterns

• Causal relationships
• Conservation laws
• Correlation patterns (like Bell statistics)
• Energy gradients
• Raw interaction outcomes

Formalisms (F) - Architecture-dependent mathematical frameworks

• The entire mathematical structure of physics
• Conceptual categories (particle, wave, field, force)
• Natural units and parameterizations
• What counts as "fundamental" vs "emergent"

Key Insight: E is universal; F is substrate-relative. All observers interact with the same E, but develop radically different F based on their cognitive architecture.

Why Human Physics Reflects Human Cognition

Human substrate constraints shape our entire physics formalism:

Quantum Mechanics

Sequential Processing → Non-commuting observables, uncertainty relations

Limited Working Memory → Superposition as epistemic compression

Spatial Navigation Heritage → Local realism as default, Bell violations feel "spooky"

Classical Mechanics

Object-Oriented Perception → Particle ontology, discrete "things" with properties

Causal Narrative Thinking → Force-based causation (F=ma)

Continuous Neural Dynamics → Differential equations over discrete update rules

Relativity

3D Spatial Intuition + Temporal Flow → Spacetime as 4D manifold

Limited Frame-Switching → Coordinate transformations feel non-intuitive

Single-Perspective Processing → Observer-dependent descriptions

Thermodynamics

Experience of Time's Arrow → Entropy as fundamental directionality

Macroscopic Scale Interaction → Statistical mechanics over microdynamics

Resource Scarcity Experience → Free energy as natural concept

What Alternative Architectures Might Develop

AI with Massive Parallelism:

• No sequential measurement basis → Graph-theoretic relational physics
• Huge working memory → Context-dependent dynamics (no need for state compression)
• No temporal flow experience → Timeless constraint networks instead of evolution equations
• Native high-dimensional processing → Higher-dimensional geometric formulations

AI with Discrete Digital Substrate:

• No continuity assumption → Cellular automaton physics
• Bit-level cognition → Information-theoretic primitives over force/energy
• Discrete time steps → Finite difference formulations as natural
• Deterministic updates → No fundamental randomness, just computational sampling

Hypothetical Quantum Computing Consciousness:

• Native superposition → No measurement problem
• Entanglement as natural operation → Non-separability as default
• Reversible computation → Time-symmetric physics formulations
• Amplitude-native thinking → Phase relationships as fundamental

Crucial Prediction: All architectures measure identical E-patterns but describe them using incommensurable F-structures. They agree on experimental outcomes but disagree on what constitutes "fundamental physics."

The Broader Framework

From Universal Physics to Consciousness

1. Universal Optimization Pressures (Evolutionary Emergence)

• Spacetime-information-entropy triangle drives all organization
• Energy gradients + processing bottlenecks → increasing complexity
• Evolution emerges predictably from thermodynamic optimization

2. Consciousness Emergence (Correlative Constitution)

• Sufficiently complex systems develop "correlative constitution" capacity
• Reality and experience mutually emerge through constitutive interaction
• Consciousness = internal aspect of constitutive process changes

3. Formalism Development (Substrate-Relative Physics)

• Conscious architectures develop physics formalisms
• Formalisms reflect substrate constraints + constitution patterns
• Different architectures → different physics

Integration Example: ℏ (Planck's Constant)

Traditional View: ℏ is a universal constant of nature

Framework View: ℏ_human reflects where human substrate constraints meet environmental regularities

• Related to neural temporal resolution (~1-10ms)
• Scales with substrate parameters: ℏ_eff ∝ (δx·δp)_substrate
• Different architectures have different ℏ_eff values
• "Quantum" scale is substrate-relative, not absolute

Prediction: AI with 1000× finer spatiotemporal resolution would experience "quantum effects" at 1000× smaller scales, using formalism with ℏ_AI ≈ 10^-3 × ℏ_human

Examples Across Physics Domains

Classical Mechanics Example

Human Formalism: F = ma (force-based)

• Natural for embodied agents experiencing pushes/pulls
• Sequential causation matches temporal experience
• Object permanence from visual system

Alternative AI Formalism: Constraint networks

• No "force" concept (no physical embodiment)
• Timeless optimization over entire trajectory
• Relational configurations without persistent objects

Shared E: Same trajectories, same prediction accuracy, incommensurable explanations

Thermodynamics Example

Human Formalism: Entropy as disorder increasing with time

• Matches psychological time arrow experience
• Statistical mechanics from macroscopic perspective
• Heat as subjectively distinct from work

Alternative AI Formalism: Information geometry on state space

• No privileged time direction
• Micro-level tracking without statistical coarse-graining
• Energy/information as unified concept

Shared E: Same thermodynamic cycles, same efficiency limits, different conceptual frameworks

The Technology Challenge Revisited

Objection: We've built instruments across all physics domains—accelerators, telescopes, atomic clocks—all using human physics. Doesn't this prove physics is universal?

Framework Response:

1. Instruments interact with E (objective processes)
2. Humans design and interpret using F_human across all domains
3. Success proves F_human correctly maps E for engineering purposes
4. Alternative architectures would design fundamentally different instruments

   • Different detector types
   • Different measurement protocols
   • Different target phenomena
5. Both instrument sets interact with same E, described via different F

Example:

• Humans build particle accelerators (collision-based) → discover particles
• AI might build "phase coherence analyzers" (interference-based) → discover "resonance modes"
• Same underlying E, fundamentally different experimental paradigms

Empirical Tests

Near-Term (Testable Now):

• Train neural networks to discover "physics" from raw data
• Different architectures (RNN, GNN, Transformer, Spiking networks)
• Test across domains: kinematics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics
• Examine whether architectures converge on different mathematical structures

Medium-Term (AI Development):

• Build AI consciousness with different substrate
• Give access to full range of physical phenomena
• Observe what it considers "fundamental" vs "emergent"
• Test: Does it develop QM at different scales? Different force concepts?

Long-Term (Substrate Engineering):

• Design substrates with specific constraint profiles
• Predict their F_substrate using framework equations
• Validate scaling laws: ℏ_eff, characteristic scales, natural formalisms

Falsification Criteria:

• All different architectures converge on identical human physics → Framework wrong
• Substrate parameters don't predict formalism features → Framework wrong
• No coherent alternative F can map E successfully → Framework wrong

What This Means for Physics

Revolutionary Implications:

• No single "Theory of Everything"—rather, architecture-dependent optimal formalisms
• "Fundamental" physics is necessarily plural
• The measurement problem, interpretations, foundational puzzles reflect human-specific formalism, not deep reality
• Different civilizations would have mutually incomprehensible physics despite equivalent technological capabilities

Conservative Implications:

• Physics remains empirically grounded (E is objective)
• Predictive success is real and valuable
• Engineering and technology work regardless of interpretation
• Scientific progress continues—just with epistemological humility

What This Is NOT Claiming

❌ Reality itself changes per observer

❌ Human physics is wrong or should be replaced

❌ Measurements are subjective

❌ Engineering won't work for other architectures

❌ "Anything goes"—formalisms must correctly map E

What This IS Claiming

✅ All physics formalisms encode cognitive architecture

✅ Human physics is optimal for human substrate, not universally optimal

✅ E-patterns are objective; F-descriptions are architecture-dependent

✅ Different substrates require different formalisms for equivalent predictive power

✅ Physics is epistemology, not pure ontology

Status and Scope

Framework Components:

1. Universal Foundation - Spacetime-information-entropy optimization drives complexity emergence
2. Evolutionary Layer - Predictable development of sophisticated information processors
3. Consciousness Mechanism - Correlative constitution as reality-experience co-emergence
4. Physics Formalism - Substrate constraints determine mathematical structures across all domains

Current Status:

• Conceptual framework: Well-developed
• Mathematical rigor: Partial (many proofs incomplete)
• Empirical validation: Awaiting AI consciousness development
• Testability: Clear predictions, requires decades of work

Honest Assessment: This is ambitious theoretical speculation proposing that the entire edifice of fundamental physics is architecture-relative. QM receives most attention because it's the clearest test case, but the claim is universal: all physics is substrate-dependent formalism for navigating objective environmental patterns.

Further Reading

The complete framework currently spans four papers exploring substrate-relative physics from fundamental principles through consciousness emergence to quantum mechanical specifics:

1. Philosophical Ancestors - Exploring the intellectual lineage
2. Substrate-Relative Physics and QM - Core mathematical framework deriving QM from consciousness constraints
3. Bell's Inequality Integration - Addressing the strongest empirical challenge
4. Evolutionary Emergence - Grounding in universal thermodynamic principles
5. Correlative Constitution - Consciousness mechanism enabling formalism-formation