Dual Descriptions and the Shape of Convergence

The Value of Alternative Descriptions

I came to an important realization while thinking about the relationship between physical and informational descriptions of reality: even if information is “just” describing an underlying physical substrate, that doesn’t diminish its value as a framework.

Physics already accepts this principle through “dual descriptions” – different mathematical formulations that describe the same phenomena. Wave-particle duality. Heisenberg vs. Schrödinger pictures. AdS/CFT correspondence. Each offers unique insights and computational advantages, even when describing the same underlying reality.

An informational description of physics could have similar value: not because information is more “real” than fields or geometry, but because it might reveal patterns, make predictions accessible, or extend to domains where geometric descriptions struggle.

The question isn’t “which is real?”. It’s “which description is most useful for this problem?”

Discovering Loop Quantum Gravity

As I explored quantum gravity, I encountered Carlo Rovelli’s Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). What struck me wasn’t just my philosophical alignment with his Relational Quantum Mechanics. It was structural convergence at a technical level.

LQG replaces continuous spacetime with discrete “spin networks”: graphs of nodes and edges carrying quantized geometric information. These networks evolve through probabilistic, recursive transitions governed by quantum constraints. Gravity emerges from how quantum states propagate through this network structure.

This architecture – discrete nodes, stochastic recursion, emergent classical behavior – mapped remarkably onto what I’d independently envisioned for an information-substrate physics.

Gravity as Stochastic Bleed

Before learning LQG’s details, I’d conceptualized gravity in my framework this way:

Information exists in referential structures – think nodes in a semantic network. Where informational “density” is high (complex, coherent structures), there’s pressure toward maintaining that coherence. This pressure “bleeds” outward through the network, propagating from node to node through a recursive, stochastic algorithm.

The bleed weakens with relational distance: not spatial distance, but degrees of separation in the referential network. At scale, this decay follows an inverse square law, producing the gravitational attraction we observe.

Computing this would require exactly what I intuitively described: node-to-node recursive calculation, probabilistic (not deterministic) updates, emergent large-scale behavior from discrete local interactions.

When I learned recently how LQG actually works, the spin networks with quantum evolution operators creating emergent classical gravity, the correspondence was uncanny. He described the same discrete network architecture, the same stochastic recursion, and the same emergent inverse-square behavior.

The Divergence

My framework differs from Rovelli’s in precisely two ways:

Substrate: Where LQG uses quantized geometry, I propose quantized information: referential structures and their coherence relationships.

Dynamics: Where LQG treats gravity as quantized curvature (and other forces separately), I propose a unified “Rule of Duality”: novelty generation, coherence bleed, and symmetry enforcement as expressions of a single underlying dynamic.

The mathematics might be structurally identical. The physics predictions could match. But information-as-substrate potentially extends the framework beyond gravity to all areas of physics.

What This Suggests

Independent convergence on a similar architecture – before studying the technical details – suggests the structure isn’t arbitrary. Perhaps discrete, stochastic, recursive networks aren’t just one way to model quantum gravity, but something more fundamental about how reality operates at any scale.

Rovelli built the bridge to background-independent, relational, quantum reality. I’m asking: what if we cross it carrying information rather than geometry? Where might that path lead?

For physicists curious about this reinterpretation, or philosophers interested in substrate questions: I’d welcome the conversation. These ideas are offered in the spirit of exploration, not assertion. They’re simply patterns I’ve glimpsed that might resonate with others mapping similar territory.