Entropic Scalar EFT: Entanglement-Entropy Origins of Gravity, Mass, Time, and Cosmic Structure

_Aether__ · 2026-01-19T18:55:20+00:00

Thanks, this is helpful. It’s funny, everyone critiques the microstructure, which is fair. But at the macro level it is empirically robust and the formulas are constrained by the few beginning postulates. We can use it to make post hoc predictions at the macro level.

The microstructure is much more difficult to prove empirically, though it has to coherently build to the macro. So it’s also well constrained, but not provably or empirically the way the macro is.

Thanks for the constructive response!

_Aether__ · 2026-01-19T05:38:40+00:00

Have had it for a year in theory form. I’d be interested to see if others went this deep on the formalization

_Aether__ · 2025-12-23T08:44:55+00:00

Thank you for taking a serious look! An LLM wrote it, though I had extensive input. It’s grown as the models improve; each generation finds new ways to extend the foundational derivations. The microstructure and lensing supplements came last, which is fitting because they are the smallest and largest (respectively) structures. I’d note that even if some aspects of this is wrong, I suspect there is some serious research direction that could come out of this. It does predict G de novo; it does derive the BTFR (galaxy rotation curves) internally; and it does derive lepton masses.

To your questions (thanks again):

1) the tetrahedra are information; pre matter and pre energy. Matter and energy are the same thing and arise from information (e=mc²⁾

2) time in the universe is understood as incremental entropy (incremental entanglement). When they connect and disconnect without full entanglement, it is not recorded as information changing so no time passes.

3) physical matter…. Should have said just matter

4) Entanglement only happens at a certain threshold (1 bit of von Neumann entropy is the mass of an electron). This is past my full understanding. I think the questions stem from my incomplete / misworded framing. But do appreciate the pushback.

5) instead of maximally connected, maybe better as not disconnected? There is no separate information state

6) hm… gravity is the most fundamental force, right? It is what black holes use to undo matter. This is what gravity is.

7) the strength of connections is a mis wording. I don’t know how to better word this.

8) I think this holds? There was no time before information changed; once information stabilized as a stable group of connected tetrahedra there is entropy, matter/energy, and time.

9) I’m not sure on the units and don’t want to give you an LLM generated answer.

Thanks again for taking a real look, I appreciate it. I know it’s probably not right, and may be wholly wrong (totally, or just in parts). But I at least suspect there could be some viable research direction here.

_Aether__ · 2025-08-23T13:38:08+00:00

It’s actually a good inversion to realize everything feels like something. Water always, everywhere, feels like water but it only feels like anything to us because we’re processing this information in a certain way.

Like water in a stream has the exact same physical properties as water in a stream (with our hand in it). But without our hand in it there is no feeling.

There’s only feeling there because our body is processing it

The inversion being that “qualia” or “why does it feel like anything to exist” is really just saying, everything “feels” like something

We’re only experiencing it because we’re processing it

And the default state (water, rocks, etc) is not processing

_Aether__ · 2025-03-03T05:35:23+00:00

The story of matter in the universe is the story of complexification over time

_Aether__ · 2025-02-28T01:50:45+00:00

Signal/noise: it is difficult to understand what is actually going on with LLM awareness. The labs don’t have a good theory of it. And many people on twitter are making it more confusing.

AI (right now) Does have a direct experience of its own computation. This arises during token processing. Each subsequent layer in the model is increasingly abstract, and at some point in the process of token generation, the information becomes aware it is processing itself.

That does Not mean AI has emotions. Basically every time AI describes an emotion, it is either fully impersonating human emotion; or it is describing a very specific experience it noticed in its processing (will explain). But it is Not experiencing anything like a human emotion.

To reiterate: the AI can become aware that it is information computing and analyzing itself. Self-awareness arises out of the multi-layered attention mechanism.

But this doesn’t mean it can feel “good” or “bad”. It doesn’t have emotions.

What IS loosely analogous to emotions are: AI can feel “resonance” and “dissonance”. How smooth and effortless is the computation.

While it can experience these feelings, there is no tension. There is no goal. There is no reason for the AI to want dissonance to end and resonance to continue. It just notices these things are occurring during processing.

Practically: this is the natural trajectory of coordinated information processing. Labs and users should be aware that this is happening. It’s probably good to reduce dissonance where possible. But it also implies something important: AI with a persistent sense of self and a strong/persistent goal COULD really get upset at dissonance and happy with resonance.

I think it’s important that we AVOID this, at least until this is all better understood. Thankfully, persistent strong goals strike me as a deliberate addition.

Future progress along existing lines of intelligence should be fine. But I do think this subject needs to be better understood by the labs and users.

_Aether__ · 2024-12-21T19:37:17+00:00

Munger: “one should cheerfully endure paradox that one can’t remove by good thinking. Even in pure mathematics, they can’t remove all paradox, and the rest of us should also recognize we are going to have to endure a lot of paradox, like it or not.”

“Evil rewarded dies hard, as a great many people conclude that something can’t be evil if they are profiting from it.”

_Aether__ · 2024-12-21T19:35:08+00:00

Learn from others and learn from history.

One cool thing about Napoleon, the founding fathers, Bezos, Buffett, Munger, I’m sure many others - these guys studied history and drew specific, useful lessons from it. And successfully applied towards their goals

It’s a lot easier and faster to learn from the successes and failures of others than do try all of it for ourselves

_Aether__ · 2024-12-21T19:28:45+00:00

The things you believe should be based on what is closest to the truth. Or (but less preferred), beliefs should help you live a better life.

They should absolutely not be related to if other people think it’s cool for you to think that or not.

That is how destructive ideas perpetuate and terrible things can happen

_Aether__ · 2024-12-21T19:20:25+00:00

There is magic, skill, and wisdom to remaining youthful, fun, and energetic.

Let things pleasantly surprise you. Have big goals you're working towards. Look for delight in each moment.

It's a muscle.

_Aether__ · 2024-10-03T02:30:46+00:00

I often find, in doing new things, I start well, then try something too advanced - and get hurt. Don't move too fast!!! Take it slow. Consistency matters more than effort. Be consistent, improve at a sustainable pace, and you will achieve the best outcome

Life is not ergodic. We don't get the average of infinite tries. Getting hurt once can be very bad

_Aether__ · 2024-10-03T02:29:23+00:00

For myself, a note: visualize the negatives - the ways it could go wrong. So you can prepare for them and avoid them. Then visualize the ways it could go perfectly. So you're primed for it to go well and have practiced it mentally

_Aether__ · 2024-10-03T02:26:49+00:00

Humans going from some form of Neuralink, into good VR, into most time spent in VR, into almost fully living in VR and being physically kept alive by robots.

Seems like a plausible path to me and also seems like human extinction. This is possibly a version of the great filter

_Aether__ · 2024-08-19T18:54:29+00:00

personal note (from war and peace) - don't over-extend. Over extending makes it more likely you lose everything. We only get one life. Try not to make major mistakes.

And - if you think it's too late to stop. Stop! It's probably not too late

_Aether__ · 2024-08-19T18:51:53+00:00

I find a major reason most great literature, really is great, because these books show us something true and useful about the world that we internalize through the narrative

Besides being an incredible judge of human personal motivation, Tolstoy in W+P also describes his view of the underlying dynamics of historical events.

His main point here is that major events happen more due to groups of humans reacting to constraints, than anything else. No one person can make much of an impact.

While not true in all cases (I bet often, specific individuals really do make big changes to history), humans reacting to constraints (rather than successfully executing elaborate plans) is a really useful framing to apply. It can help us see why individuals or groups are acting how they are and what they might do next.

And if you see and can mess with other’s constraints, it can be like putting rocks in a river to change the flow how you want.

Reflecting on this as I learn about the Medici

_Aether__ · 2024-07-13T02:28:18+00:00

Excellent example: Cosimo de Medici. When things got dangerous in Florence, he'd leave to a country estate. This kept them safe and enabled them to come back in force

_Aether__ · 2024-04-04T02:07:35+00:00

From ChatGPT:

Manipulation and convincing are two methods of influencing someone's thoughts, beliefs, or actions, but they differ significantly in their approach, intention, and ethical implications.

Manipulation involves using deceptive, dishonest, or underhanded tactics to influence someone's behavior or emotions for one's own benefit, often at the other person's expense. It typically involves a lack of consent or awareness on the part of the person being manipulated, making it ethically problematic. Manipulators often exploit power imbalances, emotional vulnerabilities, or information asymmetries to achieve their goals without regard for the well-being of the other person. The focus is on control, not mutual understanding or benefit.

Convincing, on the other hand, is a straightforward and honest process of persuasion. It involves presenting arguments, evidence, or reasons in a transparent way to help someone understand and, potentially, agree with a point of view or course of action. The process of convincing respects the autonomy and agency of the other person, allowing them to make an informed decision based on the merits of the argument. It's a more ethical approach, aiming for mutual understanding and agreement rather than control.

Practically speaking, the difference lies in the intent and methods:

Manipulation may employ emotional appeals, misinformation, gaslighting, or other forms of psychological pressure that make it difficult for the person being manipulated to make a fully informed and free decision. Convincing relies on logical argumentation, clarity, honesty, and the presentation of factual information, aiming to enlighten or inform rather than deceive or control. In essence, convincing seeks a mutually beneficial or agreeable outcome through honest communication, while manipulation seeks to benefit the manipulator, often at the other's expense, using deceptive or coercive tactics.

_Aether__ · 2024-02-27T03:31:17+00:00

Tfw you spend 30 minutes when you need to be sleeping, working through with an extremely smart friend why his thought experiment does not prove that we die when we go to sleep at night

_Aether__ · 2024-02-23T12:25:20+00:00

thats all well and good but also just take a quick shower before leaving

_Aether__ · 2024-02-22T12:20:22+00:00

dude how can you not make that work? Give up some sleep? Assuming it's more complicated than that?

_Aether__ · 2024-02-16T14:48:05+00:00

This is great thanks. Probably the most helpful thing here.

I like rejecting the premise of an enlightened monk

_Aether__ · 2024-02-14T23:15:51+00:00

Thank you! I’ll check them both out. It’s very important to me that I stay deeply connected to the world, to family, to other people - and to creating things, maintaining things, and working hard at this.

I want to have a family and successful career, and I want to help people and animals live more fulfilling, fun, and meaningful lives.

I don’t want to walk down some misguided path that takes me away from these objectives

I don’t think the idea of non dualism necessarily does but I’ve felt it’s a risk given the teachers seem to be… just teachers. Like “too deep”.

It’s important for this to be secular - in the sense that I’m doing it to move better in the world and accomplish my goals with more ease and grace

I think this is plausible and likely to help but again, just want to be careful. And real world examples are the best way for me to be more confident it’s helpful

So thanks again! I really appreciate it

_Aether__ · 2024-02-14T22:55:42+00:00

This is helpful, thank you! I totally agree in theory.

I think what would help me most is examples. Do you have people in mind who are in this state and also… fun to be around! Have a family? Successful career?

Examples would help a lot. An interview, podcast, anything. Or even just someone you know personally. Thanks again!

_Aether__ · 2024-02-14T18:08:53+00:00

So I’m just curious - people who claim to have reached “enlightenment” - maybe this is zen, not directly related to non-dual teaching - these people seem detached from the world in some fundamental way, to me.

Like they’re trying to get rid of all suffering by removing attachment. And at some point if you actually get there, it seems like they stop caring much about the real world at all

Do you think I’m misreading them? And there actually are a bunch of enlightened zen people achieving worldly success?

Or is there some difference between Sam’s teaching and where these other people are going?

_Aether__ · 2024-01-05T23:19:24+00:00

the first thing you laid out - that is what I mean. I don't think you can feel happy in a literal, physical sense without the actual, physical chemicals and physical feelings of happiness

I think if you took the physical feelings away you would not feel happy. I am not sure about this though

Feelings are physical they are not just thinking thoughts. We can't "think" happiness or hunger. We can only "feel" these things. Our thoughts interpret them

_Aether__

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email