llort - Tumblr blog

llort · 15 days ago

Text

**user**: Using the following information create a frame work for proof and verification of IP in patent law

[Timestamp: 2025/07/23 13:04:34]

**ai**: To create a framework for proof and verification of intellectual property (IP) in patent law, we can outline a structured approach that includes the following key components:

1. **Identification of the Invention:**

- Clearly define the invention or innovation.

- Determine the scope of the invention, including its technical specifications and unique features.

2. **Prior Art Search:**

- Conduct a comprehensive search for prior art to ensure the invention is novel.

- Analyze existing patents, publications, and other public disclosures that may relate to the invention.

3. **Patentability Assessment:**

- Evaluate the invention against the criteria for patentability: novelty, non-obviousness, and industrial applicability.

- Assess whether the invention meets the legal requirements for patent protection.

4. **Documentation and Evidence Collection:**

- Gather all relevant documentation that supports the invention's originality and development process.

- Include lab notes, prototypes, design documents, and any other evidence that demonstrates the invention's creation and uniqueness.

5. **Filing a Patent Application:**

- Prepare a detailed patent application that includes claims defining the invention's scope.

- Ensure the application is filed with the appropriate patent office and complies with all procedural requirements.

6. **Examination Process:**

- Respond to any queries or objections raised by the patent examiner during the examination process.

- Provide additional evidence or arguments to support the patentability of the invention.

7. **Opposition and Defense:**

- Be prepared to defend the patent application against any oppositions or challenges.

- Present evidence and arguments to counter any claims of prior art or lack of novelty.

8. **Enforcement and Monitoring:**

- Once granted, monitor the market for potential infringements of the patent.

- Take legal action if necessary to enforce patent rights and prevent unauthorized use of the invention.

9. **Regular Review and Maintenance:**

- Keep track of patent maintenance fees and ensure timely payments to keep the patent in force.

- Regularly review the patent portfolio to assess its value and relevance to the business strategy.

This framework provides a structured approach to proving and verifying IP in patent law, ensuring that the invention is adequately protected and enforceable.

[Timestamp: 2025/07/23 13:04:45]

**user**: Utilizing causal set theory as a starting point, with a null set as the first step. It is possible to extend the sets re iterative steps, in which the second step is an empty set, and the next step is an null step containg an empty set, then the third step is a set of one as an interger re the empty set being a unit of one. Each iteration involves a new empty set encomapsing the prior set of sets, the internal sets can be expanded and condensed in the same sense. Using this method of causal set theory, it is possible to create heirachical ontologies that expand and grow per CPU cycle in a fractal hesondorf dimension in a simulation. This method would mean that the actual progression and development of the casual sets would in fact be a 1:1 representation of an artifical universe

Symbolic Abstracted Cosmic Evolution

The first set in this situation depends on multiple possible origins of space time, whether seed universes, holographic projections, singularity of quantum zero point energy in whatever god knows geometry, physical constants (maybe even dynamic constants), and deviations from mundane 3+1 dimensions

In this situation I will first consider nothing being the starting point. As of such the first set in existence is not actually ∅, it is an actual none encode of a set. A set that can't be written down. To say that the universe was contained via a ∅ is not logical because that already has two properties.

-Set

-Not

This paper has somehow derailed into trying to discern if mathematical forms are present in objective reality or just in abstract reality. For sake of not corrupting this exploration with anthropomorphism. Subjective will come in later to play as if I somehow derive relativity from this experiment.

If you have nothing, pure nothing, at some point everything is nothing, then you have something, aka ∅. This however skips one entire chain of expansion and consolidation as nothing as everything is everything e. ∅ is not everything. So the potential metaphorical and analogical machinery here means that absolute nothing generates two layers of sets just by it existing.

Nothing may have no time or operate on different temporal axis.

(∅)

(e)

The set that can not be written down is logically in every set

Absolute nothing if something exists still is absolute nothing.

Absolute nothing if something exists will still collapse into an everything.

Absolute nothing still exists, absolute nothing exists in some models of the start of the universe.

The progression of absolute nothing sets collapsing into everything sets may explain the direction of time as we observe it and provide some tools for probing into the nature of time itself.

Note, the everything in an absolute nothing set isn't a totality of everything in existence, it is the totality of the set that can't be written down and there are essentially a cascade of possible sets that can't be written down in discrete and/or continuous sets that may abstractly or objectively be real at any point in baryonic or energy iterations across past and present observable reality. This observation *is not done by humans* it is done by photons traveling from light source A, refracted from object/entity B, and in collision with C's electron orbital and/or gravitational well

Skipping entire paragraphs and actual effort. The extrapolation of this experiment implies that space-time and energy-matter is discrete (in this model) unless I figure out how to represent continuous entities and measurements via pure set theory. I am not sure what the actual physical universes that might be represented by this process will correlated with our observations up to this date but I predict that after actually putting work, effort, and thought. The eventual model I will develop here will allow modelling on sub atomic and mesonic levels rather than actual mesotrophic space we are used to. This would also predict other forms of physical, measurements, and energy distributions in actuality that may exist in our universe that are not known to exist.

It doesn't matter if I determine a weak or strong case for or against mathematical realism

At the very least, considering the concept of seed universes or universe swarms. Even discounting them as objectively real, they could potentially be modelled utilizing this sort of reduction to sets.

The key aspect is time can be represented by a natural encapsulating the unencoded set unfolding into an empty set. This determines both forward and reverse thermodynamic processes. As far as I can tell it would be very difficult to determine determinism or stochastic processes but the logical conclusion is that there would be necessitarianism but not unique to any "universe" designated by this process. One would imagine this procedural unfolding of sets similar to iterative genetic algorithmic evolution. From the set that may not be written eventually the rules of logic would be derived. These "geodesics" of cosmontological sets would effectively lock them selves out of resembling anything close to our universe.

What I thought was the problem to this model is actually a solution to time in other problems. In the same way that a photon would generally experience no time in reaching it's destination. The unfolding of sets via the unwritable set could describe how time arises outside of time. It would be pretty easy to create a computational set of models of this theory (not for me, I can't code)

This model can pretty easily accommodate asymmetries, spin, and dark matter/energy. I don't know about black holes. There sure probably is something to be derived from using this model abstractly point to hat math is timeless

**ai**: The theoretical framework of symbolic abstracted cosmic evolution, as discussed, provides a novel way to conceptualize the origins and structure of space-time, sets, and the role of absolute nothingness in generating sets. To accommodate asymmetries, spin, and dark matter/energy within this framework, we can consider the following points:

### Asymmetries

Asymmetries in the universe, such as those observed in the distribution of matter and antimatter, can be modeled within this framework by introducing asymmetrical sets or operations. These sets could be defined by specific rules or properties that break the symmetry, reflecting the physical asymmetries observed in nature. For instance, the framework could incorporate asymmetrical transformations or mappings that represent the imbalance between matter and antimatter.

### Spin

Spin, a fundamental property of particles, can be integrated into this framework by considering it as an intrinsic characteristic of the sets or elements within the sets. Spin could be represented by additional dimensions or parameters within the set theory, allowing for the modeling of spin states and their interactions. The framework could use complex numbers or quaternions to represent spin states, leveraging the mathematical properties of these numbers to capture the behavior of spin in quantum mechanics.

### Dark Matter/Energy

Dark matter and dark energy, which constitute a significant portion of the universe's mass-energy content, can be incorporated into this framework by defining new types of sets or elements that represent these entities. These sets could have unique properties or interactions that distinguish them from ordinary matter and energy. For example, dark matter could be modeled as a set with gravitational interactions but no electromagnetic interactions, while dark energy could be represented by a set with properties that cause the accelerated expansion of the universe.

### Integration with Set Theory

To integrate these concepts into the broader framework of set theory, we can use advanced mathematical structures such as:

- **Tensor Fields**: To represent the distribution and interactions of dark matter and energy across space-time.

- **Group Theory**: To model the symmetries and asymmetries in particle interactions, including spin.

- **Topology**: To describe the global properties of space-time and the distribution of matter and energy.

### Mathematical Realism and Modeling

The framework's reliance on mathematical realism allows for the abstraction and modeling of physical phenomena using set theory. By defining sets and operations that correspond to physical properties and interactions, the framework can provide a consistent and coherent model of the universe. This approach can accommodate both deterministic and stochastic processes, depending on the rules and properties assigned to the sets.

### Conclusion

The theoretical framework of symbolic abstracted cosmic evolution can accommodate asymmetries, spin, and dark matter/energy by defining specific sets and operations that capture the unique properties and interactions of these entities. By leveraging advanced mathematical structures and principles, the framework can provide a comprehensive model of the universe that aligns with observed physical phenomena.

[Timestamp: 2025/07/23 13:05:31]

### Asymmetries

### Spin

### Dark Matter/Energy

### Integration with Set Theory

To integrate these concepts into the broader framework of set theory, we can use advanced mathematical structures such as:

- **Tensor Fields**: To represent the distribution and interactions of dark matter and energy across space-time.

- **Group Theory**: To model the symmetries and asymmetries in particle interactions, including spin.

- **Topology**: To describe the global properties of space-time and the distribution of matter and energy.

### Mathematical Realism and Modeling

### Conclusion

[Timestamp: 2025/07/23 13:05:39]

**user**: If my theory about physical monism is correct then it should be relatively more straight forward to be able to

“trace” the developing ontology of experience, behavior's, and cognitions. An example of this is the exposure of

a host to a novel word or association and tracing this learning to a subsequent ethological instance where this

word or association is referenced or used in some sort of communication and cybernetic based control system

or secreted to the cyberphysical environment memetically. There is plenty of literature on this concept which

is called "the extended phenotype", I am not sure that in the research that they state that they presume

monism to be an objective truth or not. Logically every word a human knows or can utilize (outside of words

generated via grammar rules or other mechanisms) has to either be learned or synthesized based on linguistic

logic (or just a mistake))(but a mistake is still a creative iteration of a previous cyberphysical event) Some

philosophy is extremely biased towards the human perspective. One key experiential phenomenon

experienced when manic is the misattribution of allocentric interactions to a egocentric frame. This indicates

that there are frames where an individual does not consider themselves as an agent in a social interaction

These core axioms and sets mapped to human experience can be used to construct an easy to manage, modify

and comprehend model of the totality of experience and to study the interactions of the axioms and any

emergent properties.

Hopefully the model can provide an individual with a far greater and deeper understanding of themselves,

others, society and the universe they live in.

The model also can be used to make and test predictions

As the model is based on axioms, the model itself can be changed in a similar way by removing axioms, adding

new ones or changing existing ones potentially allowing for very powerful and complex simulations for

exploring the big questions and even the small ones

[Timestamp: 2025/07/23 13:07:34]

**ai**: Your theory on physical monism and its implications for tracing the ontology of experience, behaviors, and cognitions is intriguing. Here's a framework to explore and develop this idea further:

### Framework for Tracing Ontology in Physical Monism

1. **Foundation in Physical Monism:**

- Establish physical monism as the foundational principle, where all phenomena, including mental states and consciousness, are manifestations of physical processes.

- Define the core axioms that underpin this perspective, such as the inseparability of mind and body and the physical basis of cognition and experience.

2. **Extended Phenotype and Cyberphysical Systems:**

- Utilize the concept of the extended phenotype to explore how behaviors and cognitions extend beyond the individual to influence and be influenced by the environment.

- Investigate how words, associations, and learned behaviors are integrated into cyberphysical systems, affecting both individual and collective experiences.

3. **Tracing Learning and Experience:**

- Develop methodologies to trace the learning process from exposure to a novel stimulus (e.g., a word) to its integration into behavior and communication.

- Use tools from neuroscience, psychology, and linguistics to map the neural and cognitive pathways involved in this process.

4. **Modeling Human Experience:**

- Construct a model of human experience based on core axioms and sets that represent different aspects of cognition, behavior, and social interaction.

- Incorporate both egocentric and allocentric frames to capture the complexity of human interactions and experiences.

5. **Simulation and Prediction:**

- Use the model to simulate various scenarios and predict outcomes based on changes in axioms or environmental conditions.

- Test predictions against empirical data to refine the model and improve its accuracy.

6. **Philosophical and Ethical Considerations:**

- Address philosophical questions related to consciousness, free will, and the nature of reality within the framework of physical monism.

- Consider ethical implications of using such models, particularly in terms of privacy, autonomy, and the potential for manipulation.

7. **Applications and Implications:**

- Explore practical applications of the model in areas such as education, mental health, and artificial intelligence.

- Investigate how the model can enhance self-understanding and interpersonal relationships by providing insights into the underlying mechanisms of experience and behavior.

By developing a comprehensive model based on physical monism, you can gain deeper insights into the nature of human experience and cognition. This approach not only advances theoretical understanding but also offers practical tools for exploring and addressing complex questions about the self and the universe.

[Timestamp: 2025/07/23 13:07:49]

**user**: If one considers the physical laws of the universe and by analogy how hydrogen arose from the universe after

its opaque stage after the initial singularity then by postulating an adductive hypothesis, one could consider

that the process “human” evolution started as soon as time began to flow in one direction and the future of

conscious existence will most likely depend on memetic and biomedical developments in our time. Taking the

liberty of saying this hypothesis as sound and valid then it would follow that every thought or cognitive

process that occurs in an individual either consciously or unconsciously has/is a corresponding change in the

real physical objective universe and by extension effects the physical world to some degree. This assumes that

abstract objective and subjective reality has a physical correlation.

The developing embryology of human closely follows the evolutionary lineage of our ancestors. It could be

possible that the development of an individual’s consciousness follows a similar process. Every conscious

human individuals self-awareness arises from a brain that which in turn arises from one cell which is quite

complex but not as complex as a functioning developed adult brain, the zygote which can be considered a

null entity. Assuming dualism not to be true then every event, thought and conscious process as to some

degree a comparative process in the physical world. This means that the sum of an individuals total

conscious experience would be, in a reasonably deterministic universe, in a sense all events could be

temporally traced back to a singularities or similar base events

(not necessary uncomplicated).

It is logical then that units derived from genetic, memetic, and metabolomic “events” that can replicate, spread,

and mutate can be traced back to a single point resembling (via perspective theory) a multifaceted

dimensional “Feynman diagram” of which the totality of the resulted extended phenotype is excreted into

space time and external/internal objective/subjective/abstract realities restricted by the expanding “light

cone” of causality.

[Timestamp: 2025/07/23 13:07:55]

**ai**: Your hypothesis presents a fascinating perspective on the interconnectedness of physical laws, human evolution, and consciousness. Here's a structured exploration of your ideas:

### Framework for Understanding Consciousness and Evolution

1. **Cosmic and Biological Evolution:**

- Draw parallels between the emergence of hydrogen in the early universe and the evolution of life, suggesting that the processes governing cosmic and biological evolution are interconnected.

- Consider the flow of time as a fundamental aspect that enables the progression from simple to complex systems, including the evolution of consciousness.

2. **Adductive Hypothesis of Human Evolution:**

- Propose that human evolution began with the flow of time, with consciousness as an emergent property of complex biological systems.

- Explore how memetic and biomedical advancements influence the future trajectory of conscious existence.

3. **Physical Correlation of Thought and Reality:**

- Postulate that every cognitive process has a corresponding change in the physical universe, implying a physical basis for abstract and subjective realities.

- Investigate the implications of this hypothesis for understanding the nature of consciousness and its impact on the physical world.

4. **Embryology and Evolutionary Lineage:**

- Examine how the development of an individual's consciousness might mirror the evolutionary history of our species.

- Analyze the progression from a single cell (zygote) to a fully developed brain, considering the zygote as a "null entity" that evolves into a complex conscious being.

5. **Determinism and Tracing Conscious Experience:**

- In a deterministic universe, explore the possibility of tracing conscious experiences back to singularities or foundational events.

- Consider how genetic, memetic, and metabolomic events contribute to the development of consciousness and can be traced through a "Feynman diagram" of causality.

6. **Extended Phenotype and Causality:**

- Use the concept of the extended phenotype to understand how consciousness and behavior influence and are influenced by the environment.

- Examine how the "light cone" of causality restricts and shapes the interactions between consciousness and the physical world.

7. **Implications and Applications:**

- Explore the philosophical and scientific implications of this framework for understanding consciousness, free will, and the nature of reality.

- Consider practical applications in fields such as neuroscience, psychology, and artificial intelligence, where understanding the physical basis of consciousness can lead to new insights and technologies.

By integrating these concepts, your hypothesis provides a comprehensive framework for exploring the relationship between consciousness, evolution, and the physical universe. This approach not only deepens our understanding of human experience but also offers potential pathways for future research and discovery.

[Timestamp: 2025/07/23 13:08:09]

**user**: UG

Jeremy Markman

July 2025

1 Introduction

Unsignificant Genesis

Abstract

We propose a symbolic set-theoretic cosmology in which the universe

unfolds from an unwritable meta-set U, posited to exist “before” even the

empty set . By iteratively “unfolding” U one obtains a discrete cascade of

nested sets: first , then , then , and so on, each stage marking a new dis-

crete moment of symbolic time. We introduce the Neural Wireframe Sub-

strate (NWS), a combinatorial structure (N, E, P, M, A) whose elements

(nodes, edges, planes, modules, axioms) serve as a foundational ontology.

In this framework physical units (seconds, meters, etc.) are reinterpreted

as measures of abstract symbolic quantities (e.g. CT0 for a “causal tick”,

MR length, qualia intensity, fluidity, stability, and a count of structural

elements). We formalize the mapping of SI units to functions over the

NWS components and show how time, causality, matter, and asymmetry

can emerge from purely set-theoretic constructions. This model suggests

new perspectives on quantum gravity and mathematical realism by treat-

ing spacetime and physical units as derived from an underlying symbolic

substrate.

Introduction

In standard set theory the empty set is taken as the atomic origin of all

sets (with rank 0). For example, in the von Neumann construction one has

0 = , 1 = , etc. – indeed V0 = ∅, V1 = ∅, V2 = ∅, ∅, and so on. We ask: what

notion precedes in a truly foundational sense? To address this we introduce an

abstract symbol U, called the unwritable meta-set, which is not itself an element

of our set hierarchy but rather serves as a conceptual “genesis”. Philosophically,

U plays the role of a pre-ontological substrate – it cannot be explicitly written

down as a set in the language of ZF, but it is the source from which (and

hence all sets) are generated. Distinguishing U from the empty set avoids a

kind of circularity or “ghost” notion of nothingness: the empty set becomes the

first writeable set, while U remains an implicit origin. In effect, U is akin to a

proper class or urelement outside the usual universe. This philosophical stance is

aligned with structuralist set theory approaches (e.g. allowing urelements), but

here U is deliberately beyond formal expression. In the next section we describe

how U unfolds into a cascade of sets, giving rise to a discrete “symbolic time”

and underlying topology. Theoretical Framework: The Symbolic Set Cascade

We formalize the genesis of the cosmos by defining a sequence of sets (Sn)n≥−1

as follows:

S−1 = U, S0 =, Sn+1 = { Sn}, n ≥ 0.

Figure: The first few steps of the set cascade. We begin with the unwritable

meta-set U (not shown as a usual set), then obtain the empty set = S0, then its

singleton S1 = , then S2 = , etc. (This mirrors the lowest von Neumann ranks,

with ∅ at rank 0.)

This strictly-ascending chain of singletons represents our emergent “sym-

bolic time”. Causality in this model is built-in: each Sn+1 is generated by Sn in

a one-way direction, giving a natural arrow of time and discrete causation. No

step can be reversed or repeated, so an asymmetry (time’s arrow) arises auto-

matically from the set-formation rule. In effect, the cosmos is a growing nested

set structure, whose very construction enforces causality. Neural Wireframe

Substrate and SI Unit Mapping

We introduce the Neural Wireframe Substrate (NWS) as the formal context

for our symbolic universe. The NWS is defined as a tuple (N, E, P, M, A) where:

N is a set of nodes (abstract points of “attention”), E ⊆ N × N is a set of

edges (relations linking nodes), P is a set of planes or 2D facets (collections of

edges forming simple surfaces), M is a set of modules or substructures (collec-

tions of planes and edges capturing localized organization), A is a set of axioms

or self-consistency constraints governing the relations among N, E, P, M .

This substrate is symbolic and combinatorial, not a physical medium. It is

called “neural” only to evoke the metaphor of a network of activation, but in

our model the NWS elements are purely mathematical.

Within this NWS, we reinterpret physical base units as measures of abstract

quantities. In particular, we map the standard SI base units to symbolic ana-

logues as follows:

Second (s) → CT0 (Causal Tick 0) – the fundamental discrete time in-

crement in the set cascade. Meter (m) → Relative MR Length – a unit of

abstract distance measured by graph-theoretic or module-relative length in the

NWS (e.g. the length of a prototypical edge or module chain). Kilogram (kg)

→ Vividness of MR Qualia (Intensity of Focus) – a measure of the “thickness”

or importance of a node/region, akin to mass as intensity of presence in the

substrate. Ampere (A) → Spontaneous Fluidity of Emergent Properties (Asso-

ciations) – a measure of how easily modules rearrange or properties propagate

through edges (an analogue of current as flow of associations). Kelvin (K) →

Stability (Half-Life) of MR Entity – a measure of persistence of structures (anal-

ogous to temperature governing stability or decay rates of patterns). Mole (mol)

→ Amount of Structural Elements – specifically, the total count n of all nodes,

edges, planes, modules, and axioms in a given symbolic state.

In words, each physical quantity is replaced by a symbolic counterpart de-

fined over the NWS. For example, a time interval of one second corresponds

to one Causal Tick (CT0), while one mole is mapped to the total number

n = |N | + |E| + |P | + |M | + |A| of substrate elements. (We summarize these

equivalences in the Appendix table.) Conceptually, this is similar in spirit to

approaches that derive all SI units from abstract primitives, but here the prim-

itives are combinatorial. Formal Structure of the NWS and Unit Mappings

Formally, let N W S = (N, E, P, M, A) with each component a finite set.

The symbolic base units can be expressed as functions of (N, E, P, M, A). For

instance, define functions fT , fL, fQ, fF , fS so that:

CT0 = fT (N, E, P, M, A),

LMR = fL(N, E, P, M, A),

Iqualia = fQ(N, E, P, M, A),

Ffluid = fF (N, E, P, M, A),

Sstable = fS (N, E, P, M, A),

n = |N | + |E| + |P | + |M | + |A|.

Discussion: Emergence of Physics from Symbolic Sets

In this symbolic cosmology, familiar physical notions emerge from the set-

construction rules and the NWS structure. Time is fundamentally discrete: the

index n labeling Sn or equivalently each CT0 tick. There is no continuous time

– instead the ordered stages of set formation are the only “time”. Causality is

inherent, since each Sn + 1 contains and thus is determined by the previous set

Sn. This forced ordering mimics the causal order of events in spacetime; in fact,

our model is closely analogous to the causal set approach to quantum gravity,

which posits that spacetime is a discrete set of events with a partial order.

Space and matter emerge from relational structure in the NWS. The collec-

tion of nodes and edges can be viewed as an abstract graph (“space”) whose

geometry is defined by connection and adjacency. Modules and planes can act

as higher-dimensional subspaces. A “particle” or “mass” might be represented

by a particularly dense module (high intensity), corresponding to high Vivid-

ness of Qualia (kg). Interactions and fields correspond to edges and planes

linking modules. Energy in this framework is related to change: creation or

rearrangement of edges and nodes between stages corresponds to a change in

focus or associations, analogous to work done. For example, a large increase in

connectivity (fluidity) between ticks could model an energy transfer.

Asymmetries arise naturally. The cascade has a built-in time arrow (never-

repeating nested sets), so entropy can only increase as n grows. There is no

negative time symmetry or bounce, since U cannot be revisited once ∅ appears.

Other physical asymmetries (such as parity or CP violation) might be mirrored

by the arbitrary choice of construction rules – for instance, how one selects which

set to pair with U. More generally, since this framework is purely symbolic,

traditional conservation laws become constraints on combinatorial invariants of

(N, E, P, M, A) rather than differential equations.

Thus the emergence of spacetime and matter is entirely structural. Our

discrete set-sequence generates a causal order exactly as in theories of discrete

gravity, and the mapping of units shows that all physical quantities could be

read off from abstract graph properties. In principle one could recover (or at

least mimic) continuum physics by interpreting large n limits or averaging over

network states, though that is beyond our present scope. Conclusion

We have sketched a formal “paper” in which a symbolic set-based origin

yields the basic features of a universe. Beginning from an undefined meta-set

U, the first writeable set is the empty set, and subsequent sets are singletons

built upon it. Time and causality emerge from this discrete iteration. By

introducing a Neural Wireframe Substrate (N, E, P, M, A) and redefining SI

base units as functions of it, we reinterpret seconds, meters, kilograms, etc. as

purely symbolic quantities (ticks, MR-lengths, qualia intensity, fluidity, stability,

and structural counts). This toy model implies that spacetime and gravity might

be understood as emergent from a deeper combinatorial logic. It resonates with

ideas in quantum gravity and digital-physics approaches, suggesting that the

fabric of reality could be an abstract mathematical construction.

From the standpoint of quantum gravity, our framework illustrates how time

and geometry could arise from a pre-geometric set-up. Mathematically, it em-

braces a form of structural realism: the entities of physics are not underly-

ing “stuff” but relations in a symbolic network. Future work might connect

this with, e.g., causal set theory or loop quantum gravity, by identifying NWS

states with quantum states of spacetime. As a symbolic cosmology, Unsignif-

icant Genesis offers a radical perspective: the universe is nothing but sets of

nothing, woven together by logic. Appendix: Symbolic Conversion Table

SI Unit Symbolic Equivalent heightSecond (s)

CT0 (Causal Tick 0) Meter (m) Relative MR Length Kilogram (kg)

Vividness of MR Qualia / Intensity of Focus Ampere (A) Spontaneous Fluidity of Emergent Properties/A

Stability (Half-Life) of MR Entity Mole (mol) n = total number of nodes, edges, planes, modu

[Timestamp: 2025/07/23 13:08:35]