We treat physical law not primarily as a description of motion, but as a consistency requirement for bookkeeping under irreducible information loss. We isolate two minimal constraints—Accounting Invariance and Update Closure—and explain how they constrain admissible descriptions and thereby require certain core structural features often associated with relativistic and quantum descriptions. When residual freedom remains, an auxiliary minimality principle in reconstruction cost selects familiar realizations (e.g. Hilbert-type norms and relativistic geometric dynamics) as those that are not eliminated by the admissibility filter. This note is auxiliary: it does not aim to replace established theories, nor to introduce new mathematical results, but to fix interpretational scope and minimal admissibility requirements for the structural framework in [1].
We treat physical law not primarily as a description of motion, but as a consistency requirement for bookkeeping under irreducible information loss. We isolate two minimal constraints—Accounting Invariance and Update Closure—and explain how they constrain admissible descriptions and thereby require certain core structural features often associated with relativistic and quantum descriptions. When residual freedom remains, an auxiliary minimality principle in reconstruction cost selects familiar realizations (e.g. Hilbert-type norms and relativistic geometric dynamics) as those that are not eliminated by the admissibility filter. This note is auxiliary: it does not aim to replace established theories, nor to introduce new mathematical results, but to fix interpretational scope and minimal admissibility requirements for the structural framework in [1].
We present a minimal structural framework in which relativistic causality and quantum probability emerge as effective descriptions, without postulating spacetime geometry, dynamical equations, or quantum states as primitives. The framework is based on resolution-dependent representations and an accounting invariant that tracks irreducible loss under coarse-graining. Crucially, we do not propose an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics, but identify minimal structural constraints under which any admissible physical theory must reduce to probabilistic descriptions. We show that locality and closure of admissible updates force causal cone structures and probabilistic state updates. Classical spacetime dynamics, such as General Relativity, can be understood within this framework as selected realizations that satisfy the same admissibility constraints under appropriate resolution regimes. Rather than competing with existing physical models, this theory constrains which models are physically admissible.
Foundational problems in physics—including quantum measurement, spacetime emergence, gravitational dynamics, nonlocality, the arrow of time, and the status of physical existence—are typically addressed in isolation, via model-dependent extensions or interpretive assumptions. This work proposes a different approach. We introduce a constraint-based framework, the Closure Admissibility Principle (CAP), which specifies minimal structural conditions any physical description must satisfy in order to be globally consistent. CAP is formulated in operational terms, using admissibility of states, recoverability under refinement, and stability of closed records, without assuming spacetime, dynamics, or ontology a priori. We show that enforcing these constraints induces a unifying closure structure on law-space, from which several persistent foundational puzzles are resolved as structural consequences rather than postulates. In particular, collapse is reclassified as record selection, spacetime and gravity emerge only in compressible regimes, General Relativity appears as an infrared universality class rather than a fundamental law, singularities correspond to failures of admissible description, and null (“nothing”) models are excluded as inadmissible fixed points. The framework is explicitly falsifiable via operational and weak-field tests, and its scope and limits are stated precisely. The results suggest that many foundational paradoxes arise not from incomplete dynamics, but from admitting globally incoherent physical descriptions.
Modern physics provides empirically complete and highly successful descriptions of local dynamics. General relativity specifies the causal evolution of spacetime geometry, and quantum mechanics specifies the unitary evolution of states. Despite this success, both frameworks leave implicit a foundational question: when a dynamically admissible configuration can be regarded as physically realized as part of a coherent world. This work introduces a minimal, non-dynamical realization criterion that formally closes this gap. Physical realization is defined as a global, temporally organized admissibility condition constrained by relativistic causality. The criterion does not modify any local equations of motion, introduce new forces, fields, particles, or degrees of freedom, nor alter the mathematical structure of existing theories. Instead, it identifies realization as an organizational condition required for dynamical solutions to become physically instantiated. A minimal causal bound T = L / c is shown to follow directly from relativistic causal structure, implying a finite organizational time for global coherence across a spatial extent L. The associated inverse scale Ω = c / L is clarified as a structural constant rather than a dynamical frequency: it has no oscillatory interpretation, carries no energy, and does not represent a physical process. Its role is purely limiting—it marks the minimal global temporal orientation required for realization to persist. Within this framework, classical gravitational optics, delayed global geometric organization, and quantum outcome realization arise as direct consequences of the same realization criterion. The contribution of this work is exclusively structural: it makes explicit a condition already implicit in successful physical theories and provides a formal closure without extending or revising their dynamics. This paper concludes a broader research program on temporal realization, gravitational organization, and global coherence by isolating realization as a necessary condition for physics to describe a world at all.
This paper proposes a structural framework in which physical laws and quantum probability emerge from a common admissibility principle, rather than from the unification of dynamical equations.No new forces, fields, particles, or dynamical laws are introduced.Instead, a universal structural constraint governing which states are admissible as physically realizable is identified. Building on results established in Admissibility Frameworks I and II, the existence of a universal frame constant limiting allowable transitions is taken as a starting point.From this principle, an equation of existence is formulated, which does not describe time evolution but instead delineates the boundary between admissible and non-admissible states.Different physical interactions are shown to correspond to distinct structural interpretations of the same admissibility condition. Within this framework, quantum states are interpreted not as probability amplitudes but as admissibility distributions.Measurement is described as structural filtering at the admissibility boundary, rather than as a dynamical collapse process.Under minimal and physically natural assumptions—phase invariance, orthogonal additivity, and locality—the admissibility measure is shown to be uniquely quadratic, yielding the Born rule as a structural consequence rather than a postulate. The resulting theory reframes unification as the closure of existence conditions shared by all physical theories.Dynamics remain domain-specific, but admissibility is universal.In this sense, unification is achieved not by combining forces, but by identifying the single structural condition under which any physical state may exist. AI Usage Declaration: The core concepts and mathematical intuitions of this paper were conceived by the author (Byeong-Young Oh). The technical formalization of the mathematical framework and the English drafting process were performed in collaboration with Artificial Intelligence (AI) models. The author takes full responsibility for the contents and logical integrity of this work. This work is part of an ongoing independent research program. Official research index :https://jingyu-papa.github.io/publications/
Abstract This paper proposes a minimal formal criterion for physical entity. It does not attempt to derive quantum mechanics, general relativity, quantum gravity, or any empirical prediction. Its aim is narrower: to ask what formal conditions must be satisfied before a structure may be treated as a physical entity at all. The starting point is the principle of stable distinguishability: a physical theory is possible only where distinctions can be made and re-identified under admissible change. From this requirement, the paper develops a constraint-primacy framework in which no particle, field, spacetime point, state, measurement, or observable is assumed as primitive. The formal layer consists of tokens, admissibility, and a closure operator defined on the full power set of tokens. Identity is reconstructed as closure-equivalence. Boundary is defined non-spatially as first-entry dependency, and core is defined non-circularly as a closed non-boundary substructure. A physical entity is then defined as a boundary-stable closure-core equivalence class: a closed admissible structure whose core closure-identity is preserved under relevant boundary-mediated extensions. The paper uses familiar mathematical tools, including closure, equivalence, isomorphism, and invariance; its proposed contribution is not those tools themselves, but the ontological criterion they support.
Modern physics relies on several highly successful mathematical frameworks — quantum theory, gauge theory, general relativity, and thermodynamics. These theories describe nature extremely well, yet their mathematical forms are usually introduced through independent postulates. This work asks a prior question: why do these mathematical structures appear at all? The framework developed here begins from two minimal structural requirements for persistence:coherent return (self-consistency under transformation) and triadic closure (the minimal structure required for such verification). Within clearly stated domain restrictions — independent composability, smooth relational locality, and finite resolution — these postulates impose strong constraints on how physical systems can be represented. From these structural constraints, several familiar elements of modern physics arise as minimal admissible forms: • complex Hilbert space and unitary quantum evolution• quadratic weighting (Born rule)• relational geometry and Einstein-type gravitational response• irreversible temporal ordering from non-invertible return• entropy and the Second Law from indistinguishability growth• compact unitary gauge structure The framework does not attempt to predict parameter values or replace existing physical theories. Instead, it explains why the mathematical forms used by those theories are structurally admissible once coherent persistence under finite resolution is required. As a numerical application, the Koide relation for charged-lepton masses is shown to arise as a geometric consequence of triadic equilibrium in quadratic mass-amplitude space, conditional on the charged-lepton family realizing a coherent triadic structure. The result is a structural program for physics: rather than proposing new dynamical laws, it constrains the mathematical forms that viable physical laws may take.