Conspiranon

Stephen Hawking famously emphasized that physical infinities should not be taken at face value. In A Brief History of Time, he noted that stars do not burn forever because they possess finite fuel, and that the appearance of infinities in physical theories signals the breakdown of applicability rather than the existence of literal infinities in nature. Reactive Substrate Theory applies this same interpretive discipline systematically: when general relativity predicts singularities, it treats them not as physical objects, but as indicators that the description has exceeded the limits imposed by finite, dissipative reality. The same logic applies in quantum mechanics: when formal continuability gives rise to interpretations such as infinite branching or physically realized multiverses, RST treats these not as discoveries of new realms, but as signs that mathematical idealization has been read beyond the bounds of physical admissibility. In thermodynamics, the same discipline blocks the...

5.3 Horizons as Response Boundaries, Not Geometric Mysteries Event horizons occupy a peculiar position in gravitational interpretation. Formally, they are among the cleanest structures in general relativity: null surfaces defined by causal accessibility. Interpretively, they have accumulated a dense halo of metaphysical speculation. This accumulation is not a consequence of the equations. It is a consequence of reading geometric boundaries as if they were physical agents. In general relativity, an event horizon marks the boundary beyond which signals cannot reach future null infinity. It says nothing, by itself, about forces, barriers, surfaces, or physical membranes. Yet horizons are routinely narrated as if they do something: trap information, block escape, or separate regions of reality. The RST Stripping: Causal Inaccessibility vs. Causal Mechanism Under RST, a horizon is not a place where gravity becomes infinite. ...