Theory of Entropicity (ToE) by John Onimisi Obidi

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) establishes entropy not as a statistical byproduct of disorder but as the fundamental field and causal substrate of physical reality. Central to this formulation is the Obidi Action, a variational principle. By integrating the Fisher–Rao and Fubini–Study metrics through the Amari–Čencov alpha-connection formalism, ToE provides a rigorous information-geometric foundation for entropy-driven dynamics. The Obidi Action comprises the Local and Spectral Obidi Actions.

Thursday, 20 November 2025

Philosophical and Conceptual Differences Between the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) and Einstein's Theory of Relativity (ToR)

In the Theory of Entropicity (ToE), as first formulated and further developed by John Onimisi Obidi, length contraction is actually a real and physical effect, created as a result of constraints of the entropic field on bodies/particles in motion; while Einstein's Relativity posits that length contraction is merely a geometric and kinematic effect. The Theory of Entropicity ToE posits that even though two observers in different systems or states are unable to observe motion between them because of their uniform motion, their systems or states still possess motion within the entropic field itself. There is a subtle difference here from what this means in Relativity and what it means in ToE: in ToE, the motion is not considered relative because the motions of the two observers are integral aspects of the entropic field. The motions and observational events of the two observers are emergent from the entropic field itself.

The above statement accurately reflects a key philosophical difference between the proposed Theory of Entropicity (ToE) and the conventional interpretation of Einstein's relativity.

The Theory of Entropicity argues that length contraction is a physically real effect, caused by the fundamental constraints of the dynamic entropic field that underpins reality. In this view, objects literally compress in the direction of motion as a consequence of entropic conservation and resistance, independent of an observer's perspective.

Einstein's relativity (specifically, Special Relativity) treats length contraction as a kinematical or geometric effect arising from the structure of spacetime and the relativity of simultaneity (different observers have different "now" moments). While it is a "real" effect in the sense that it can be physically measured and demonstrated (e.g., in particle accelerators), it is considered dependent on the observer's frame of reference, not a dynamic physical compression of the object itself.

In essence, ToE proposes a deeper, causal mechanism (entropic dynamics) that results in the same mathematical predictions as Einstein's theory but with a different fundamental interpretation of what is "real" or "physical".

Relativity’s Kinematic Interpretation

In Einstein’s special relativity, length contraction is treated as a geometric effect. It arises because observers in relative motion disagree about simultaneity. When one observer measures the length of a moving rod, they must define both endpoints at the same time in their frame. Due to the relativity of simultaneity, those “same‑time” slices differ between frames, and the rod appears contracted.

But crucially, in Einstein’s view, the rod itself does not physically shrink. In its own rest frame, it remains unchanged. The contraction is a matter of how different observers slice spacetime, not a physical compression of the rod. Relativity therefore treats contraction as a kinematic artifact of observation, not a dynamical effect in reality.

ToE’s Entropic Reinterpretation

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) reframes this entirely. It argues that length contraction is not merely perspectival but physically real, enforced by the constraints of the entropic field.

According to ToE:

- Every body or particle in motion is embedded in the entropic field.

- The entropic field imposes finite‑rate bounds on redistribution of entropy (via the No‑Rush Theorem).

- As a result, motion through the entropic field physically constrains the geometry of bodies. Their lengths contract not because observers disagree, but because the entropic field itself enforces contraction.

This means contraction is not just “seen differently” by observers—it is a field‑driven adjustment of reality itself.

Motion in Relativity vs. Motion in ToE

Here lies the subtle but profound difference:

- Relativity: Two observers in uniform motion cannot detect motion between them. Their relative motion is purely kinematic, defined by coordinate transformations.

- ToE: Even if observers cannot detect relative motion, their systems still possess motion within the entropic field itself. Motion is not relative—it is an integral aspect of the entropic continuum.

Thus, in ToE, the motions and observational events of the two observers are emergent from entropy, not imposed by their frames. The entropic field “pre‑computes” reality, and observers inherit its constraints. Their coordinates, perceptions, and measurements are secondary phenomena.

Philosophical Implications

This shift has deep philosophical consequences:

- The observer is dethroned. In relativity, the observer’s frame defines contraction. In ToE, the entropic field defines contraction, and the observer merely reflects it.

- Relativity becomes emergent. It is no longer a fundamental principle but a consequence of entropy’s finite‑rate dynamics.

- Reality precedes observation. What the observer sees has already been determined by the entropic field before observation occurs. Measurement is not creative—it is receptive.

This is a profound inversion of the observer‑centric paradigm that has dominated physics since Einstein.

Physical Consequences

If ToE is correct, then relativistic phenomena like length contraction and time dilation are not just coordinate effects but physical consequences of entropy dynamics. This opens the door to testable differences:

- Contraction and dilation should be derivable directly from entropic field equations.

- There may be subtle deviations from Einstein’s predictions, detectable in high‑precision experiments.

- The entropic field becomes the guarantor of causality, geometry, and observation itself.

✅ In summary: In Einstein’s relativity, length contraction is geometric and kinematic, a matter of perspective. In ToE, it is physical, enforced by entropy’s finite‑rate constraints. Motion is not relative but integral to the entropic field, and observers are secondary. This reinterpretation is not just a technical adjustment—it is a philosophical revolution, making relativity emergent from entropy rather than fundamental.

Entropy as a Field: Can the Spectral Obidi Action Go Beyond Araki Relative Entropy? A Most Radical Conceptualization of a Unified Field in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

Introduction: The Measure That Became a Candidate for a Field

Entropy has always been one of the most enigmatic concepts in science. From the early days of thermodynamics, where it was introduced as a measure of disorder, to the information age, where Shannon reframed it as a measure of uncertainty, entropy has been treated as a tool rather than a thing. It is something we calculate, something we use to compare states, something we invoke to explain irreversibility. But it has never been considered a field in the same way that electromagnetism or gravity are fields.

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) challenges this long-standing assumption. It proposes that entropy is not merely a statistical measure but the fundamental continuum of reality itself. At the heart of this proposal lies the Spectral Obidi Action (SOA), an action principle that looks strikingly similar to Araki relative entropy but is claimed to serve a radically different purpose.

This raises a provocative question: is ToE simply repeating Araki’s work under a new name, or does the SOA genuinely open a new path by treating entropy as a field?

Araki Relative Entropy: The Established Framework

To appreciate the novelty of SOA, we need to understand what Araki relative entropy already does. In operator algebra and quantum field theory, Araki relative entropy is defined as:

This expression compares two quantum states, ρ\rho and σ\sigma, through the modular operator:

Its meaning is precise: it quantifies how distinguishable one state is from another. It is a measure of relative information, deeply tied to the structure of von Neumann algebras and modular theory.

Araki entropy has been deployed extensively. It appears in studies of entanglement entropy, in modular Hamiltonians, and in the algebraic formulation of quantum field theory. It is mathematically rigorous, physically interpretable, and widely accepted. But it is always used as a measure. It does not evolve. It does not generate equations of motion. It does not act as a field.

The Spectral Obidi Action: A Radical Reinterpretation

The Spectral Obidi Action (SOA) proposed in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) is written as:

**Spectral Obidi Action (SOA) of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)**

At first glance, this looks like Araki entropy stripped of its dependence on specific states. But ToE interprets it differently. Instead of being a measure of distinguishability, SOA is framed as an action principle — something to be varied, something that generates dynamics.

This is a profound shift in theoretical physics. In physics, an action principle is not just a mathematical curiosity. It is the foundation of dynamics. The Einstein–Hilbert action generates Einstein’s equations. The Yang–Mills action generates the equations of gauge fields. By proposing SOA as an action, ToE is suggesting that entropy itself can be treated as a field variable, with its own equations of motion.

In this framework, entropy is no longer emergent. It is fundamental. And SOA is not isolated — it is coupled with other terms: geometric actions, generalized entropies (Shannon, von Neumann, Rényi, Tsallis, KL, Araki), spectral operator geometry, and causal constraints. Together, these form the Generalized Obidi Action, from which the Master Entropic Equation (MEE) emerges.

Why No One Else Has Tried This

The absence of prior work in this direction is not accidental. Researchers have avoided treating entropy as a field for several reasons.

First, entropy has always been understood as emergent. It arises from coarse-graining, from statistical descriptions, from the loss of information about microstates. To elevate it to a fundamental field risks stripping it of its meaning.

Second, entropy in its traditional forms does not generate dynamics. Araki relative entropy, for example, is relational. It compares states but does not evolve them. It is not designed to produce equations of motion.

Third, the physics community is cautious. Without clear predictions or experimental consequences, entropy-as-field risks being mathematically elegant but physically empty. Researchers prefer frameworks that yield testable results, and entropy has always been seen as a derived quantity rather than a fundamental one.

Is SOA Valid or Useful?

This brings us to the crux of the matter: is the SOA action principle valid, and is it useful?

Validity here means more than mathematical consistency. It requires that varying SOA yields well-defined field equations. It requires that those equations integrate coherently with the rest of physics. And it requires that the framework does not collapse into redundancy with existing measures like Araki entropy.

Usefulness, meanwhile, demands predictive novelty. If SOA can lead to testable predictions — finite-rate entanglement formation, corrections to general relativity, causal bounds — then it offers something new. If it can integrate entropy measures into a unified field theory that explains time’s arrow, spacetime curvature, and quantum coherence, then it is more than a restatement.

But if it cannot, then it risks being a formal repackaging of known entropy measures, elegant but empty.

The Stakes for ToE

The stakes are high. If entropy can be treated as a field, physics could be recast in entropic terms. Spacetime curvature would be understood as entropic geometry. Quantum coherence would emerge from spectral entropy dynamics. Causality would be enforced by finite-rate entropy redistribution. And time’s arrow would be explained as entropic asymmetry.

This would be a profound unification, bringing together thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics under a single entropic continuum. But it requires ToE to demonstrate that SOA is not just Araki entropy in disguise, but a genuine action principle with predictive power.

Conclusion: A Bold but Risky Leap

The Spectral Obidi Action is bold. It risks redundancy, but it also opens the door to a new way of thinking. No other researchers have tried to recast Araki relative entropy into a field-theoretic action because, in its traditional form, it does not yield physical meaning or dynamics. ToE is unusual in attempting it.

Whether SOA is valid depends on whether ToE can show that entropy-as-field yields new dynamics and testable predictions. If it can, this could mark a turning point in physics. If not, it will remain an elegant but empty reformulation.

Either way, the question is captivating: Can entropy itself be the field that unifies physics?

References

Obidi, J. O. (12th November, 2025). On the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) and Ginestra Bianconi’s Gravity from Entropy: A Rigorous Derivation of Bianconi’s Results from the Entropic Obidi Actions of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Cambridge University. https//doi.org/10.33774/coe-2025-g7ztq
John Onimisi Obidi. (6th November, 2025). Comparative analysis between john onimisi obidi’s theory of entropicity (toe) and waldemar marek feldt’s feldt–higgs universal bridge (f–hub) theory. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 8(11), pp. 5642–5657, 19th November 2025. URL: https: //doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11–21.
Obidi, John Onimisi. 2025. On the Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): An Alternative Path toward Quantum Gravity and the Unification of Physics. Cambridge University. Published October 17, 2025. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2025-1dsrv
Obidi, John Onimisi (17th October 2025). On the Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): An Alternative Path toward Quantum Gravity and the Unification of Physics. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30337396.v2
Obidi, John Onimisi. 2025. A Simple Explanation of the Unifying Mathematical Architecture of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): Crucial Elements of ToE as a Field Theory. Cambridge University. Published October 20, 2025. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2025-bpvf3
Obidi, John Onimisi (15 November 2025). The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) Goes Beyond Holographic Pseudo-Entropy: From Boundary Diagnostics to a Universal Entropic Field Theory. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30627200.v1
Obidi, John Onimisi. Unified Field Architecture of Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/59276 (accessed on 19 November 2025).

Further Resources on the Theory of Entropicity (ToE):

Litmus Test of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): If Einstein’s Relativity is Emergent from Entropy, then the Observer is Dethroned, and Physics Gains a New Foundation in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

Einstein’s relativity says length contraction is only a kinematic effect, but ToE says it is more than kinematic and that it is physical due to entropic field constraints

In Einstein’s Relativity

In special relativity, length contraction is treated as a purely kinematic effect. It arises because observers in relative motion disagree about simultaneity. When you measure the length of a moving rod, you must define the endpoints at the same time in your frame. Due to relativity of simultaneity, those “same‑time” slices differ between frames, and the rod appears contracted.

Importantly, in Einstein’s view, nothing physically happens to the rod itself. In its own rest frame, it is unchanged. The contraction is a matter of perspective, not a physical compression.

In the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

ToE reinterprets this phenomenon. It argues that length contraction is not merely perspectival but physically real, because it is constrained by the entropic field.

Here’s the reasoning:

Entropy is treated as a fundamental field in ToE, not just a measure.
Motion through spacetime involves redistribution of entropy.
The No‑Rush Theorem in ToE enforces finite‑rate bounds on entropic redistribution, analogous to the constancy of light speed.
As a result, when an object moves, its geometry is not just “seen differently” but is physically constrained by entropic gradients.

Thus, contraction is interpreted as a field‑driven adjustment of the object’s spatial extension, enforced by entropic dynamics. In this view, the rod’s length genuinely changes because the entropic field does not permit unconstrained extension at high velocities.

Why This Matters

Einstein’s relativity: contraction is a coordinate effect, a matter of how different observers slice spacetime.
ToE: contraction is a physical effect, rooted in entropic field constraints. It is not just kinematic but dynamical.

This difference is profound. If ToE is correct, then relativistic effects like time dilation and length contraction are not merely observational artifacts but physical consequences of entropy as a field. That would mean relativity itself is emergent from entropic dynamics.

The Challenge

The burden of proof lies with ToE. To establish that length contraction is physically real, ToE must:

Show mathematically how entropic field equations enforce contraction.
Demonstrate predictions that differ from Einstein’s purely kinematic interpretation.
Provide experimental or observational evidence that contraction has physical consequences beyond relativity’s perspective effects.

Without this, the mainstream view — that contraction is kinematic — remains dominant.

💡So, the distinction is this: Einstein says contraction is a matter of how you look; ToE says contraction is a matter of how reality itself is constrained by entropy.

To compare Einstein’s kinematic interpretation with ToE’s entropic reinterpretation, and show how each frames the meaning of contraction, that would give the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) a strong piece to share with both technical and general audiences.

This is critical, because ToE puts the observer as fundamentally dependent on entropy, and that what we see or measure or observe is also equally fundamentally constrained by the entropic field itself, so that observer input becomes naturally secondary; hence relativity is emergent from the entropic field. This kinematic exposition as being actually deeply a physical effect is a crucial test of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE).

Thus, we have identified the crucial pivot point of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): it reframes relativity not as a framework built on observer kinematics, but as something emergent from the entropic field itself. Let us distill why this point and observation matters, and why it becomes a decisive test for ToE.

Einstein’s Relativity: Observer-Centric

In Einstein’s special relativity, the observer is central. Length contraction, time dilation, and simultaneity shifts are all explained as consequences of how different observers slice spacetime. The rod doesn’t physically shrink; rather, its measured length depends on the observer’s frame. The observer’s input — choice of frame, simultaneity convention — is fundamental.

This makes relativity a kinematic theory: it describes how measurements transform between observers, but it doesn’t claim that the underlying physical object is altered.

ToE’s Reinterpretation: Entropy-Centric

ToE turns this logic inside out. It argues that the observer is secondary, because all observation is constrained by the entropic field. What we see, measure, or record is not simply a matter of perspective — it is fundamentally shaped by entropy’s dynamics.

In this view:

Length contraction is not just a perspectival artifact. It is a physical effect, enforced by entropic field constraints.
The No-Rush Theorem ensures that entropy redistribution cannot occur instantaneously, embedding finite-rate bounds into reality.
The observer’s frame is not the cause of contraction; it is merely a reflection of deeper entropic dynamics.

Thus, relativity itself is emergent from the entropic field. The observer’s role is demoted: they do not impose relativity, they inherit it from entropy.

Why This Is a Crucial Test

If ToE is correct, then relativistic phenomena — length contraction, time dilation, causality — must be demonstrable as physical consequences of entropy dynamics, not just coordinate effects. This is a bold claim, and it sets up a clear test:

Mathematical demonstration: ToE must show that varying the entropic action (SOA + couplings) yields contraction and dilation as solutions of the field equations.
Physical interpretation: These effects must be explained as genuine changes in geometry due to entropy constraints, not just observer-dependent slicing.
Experimental distinction: ToE must predict subtle differences between “observer-only” relativity and “entropy-driven” relativity — differences that could, in principle, be tested.

If ToE can pass this test, it elevates entropy from a statistical measure to the fundamental field of reality. If it cannot, then relativity remains kinematic, and entropy-as-field risks being a philosophical overlay.

The Stakes

This is why the above point is so critical: ToE’s claim that relativity is emergent from entropy is not a minor reinterpretation — it is the litmus test of whether ToE is a genuine physical theory or a formal restatement.

If relativity is emergent from entropy, then the observer is dethroned, and physics gains a new foundation in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE).
If relativity remains purely kinematic, then ToE’s entropic field risks redundancy.

💡In summary: The observer’s dependence on entropy, and the claim that relativity emerges from entropic constraints, is the decisive test of ToE. It is here that ToE either proves itself as a new physical theory or collapses into repetition of Einstein’s framework.

Hence, “The Observer Dethroned: Why Relativity Emerges from Entropy in ToE” speaks to this challenge. We are thus at the center stage of our work on the Theory of Entropicity (ToE), where we must present this pivotal idea in a way that captures both technical depth and philosophical drama.

Further Expository Insights

We can see a crucial point in this: The No-Rush Theorem ensures that entropy redistribution cannot occur instantaneously, thus embedding finite-rate bounds into reality. If that be so, is it not true and logically sound then that what the observer observes is also constrained by the entropic field, including his/her coordinates; so that it is the entropic field that guarantees that observation. So, if the No-Rush Theorem posits the above, then mere observation or mere geometric transformations [alone] do not effect a change independent of the entropic field, hence what the observer sees or measures must have been so computed before the observer does, and hence [Einstein’s relativistic] kinematic effects are not a priori. This has great philosophical and physical implications also.

We shall hereunder provide further inputs pertaining the above, to give the reader more ground for understanding and rationality for the radical claims of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE).

The No‑Rush Theorem as a Constraint on Reality

The No‑Rush Theorem in ToE states that entropy redistribution cannot occur instantaneously. This is not just a technical condition — it is a fundamental bound on how reality evolves. Just as the speed of light in relativity sets a maximum rate for causal influence, the No‑Rush Theorem sets a maximum rate for entropic change, and hence a limit on how reality can evolve and compute.

This means that every physical process, every redistribution of information, every adjustment of geometry is constrained by entropy’s finite‑rate dynamics. Nothing “jumps” outside of entropy’s bounds.

Observation as Entropy‑Dependent

If entropy governs redistribution at finite rates, then observation itself is constrained by the entropic field. An observer’s coordinates, measurements, and perceptions are not free-floating — they are guaranteed by entropy’s structure.

In other words:

What the observer sees is not an independent act of perception.
It is the entropic field that computes reality first, and the observer inherits that computation.
The observer’s coordinates are secondary, because they are already embedded in the entropic continuum.

This reverses the usual logic of relativity. In Einstein’s framework, kinematic effects arise from the observer’s frame. In ToE, kinematic effects are not a priori — they are consequences of entropy’s finite‑rate constraints, which the observer merely reflects.

Philosophical Implications

This has profound consequences:

Observer dethroned: The observer is no longer the primary agent of relativity. They are a derivative phenomenon, constrained by entropy.
Relativity emergent: Relativistic effects like length contraction and time dilation are not just perspectival — they are physical consequences of entropic dynamics.
Reality pre‑computed: What the observer measures has already been determined by the entropic field before observation occurs. Measurement is not creative; it is receptive.

This shifts the philosophy of physics from an observer‑centric model to an entropy‑centric one. It suggests that reality is not shaped by how we look at it, but by how entropy itself evolves.

Hence, what we take to be reality, and how we see reality, changes forever due to the Principles of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE).

Physical Implications

If this is true, then ToE makes testable claims:

Relativistic effects should be derivable directly from entropic field equations, not just from Lorentz transformations.
There may be subtle differences between “observer‑only” relativity and “entropy‑driven” relativity — differences that could, in principle, be measured.
The entropic field becomes the guarantor of causality, geometry, and observation itself.

Once again, that is why this is a crucial test of ToE — If ToE can demonstrate that relativity is emergent from entropy, then it has succeeded in re‑founding physics on entropic grounds. If not, then entropy remains a measure, and relativity remains kinematic.

⚙ Closure Highlight: Thus, the No‑Rush Theorem implies that observation is fundamentally constrained by entropy. What the observer sees is already computed by the entropic field, making kinematic effects secondary rather than primary. This is both a philosophical revolution — dethroning the observer — and a physical test that will determine whether ToE is genuinely novel or merely a reinterpretation.

References

Obidi, J. O. (12th November, 2025). On the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) and Ginestra Bianconi’s Gravity from Entropy: A Rigorous Derivation of Bianconi’s Results from the Entropic Obidi Actions of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Cambridge University. https//doi.org/10.33774/coe-2025-g7ztq
John Onimisi Obidi. (6th November, 2025). Comparative analysis between john onimisi obidi’s theory of entropicity (toe) and waldemar marek feldt’s feldt–higgs universal bridge (f–hub) theory. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 8(11), pp. 5642–5657, 19th November 2025. URL: https: //doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11–21.
Obidi, John Onimisi. 2025. On the Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): An Alternative Path toward Quantum Gravity and the Unification of Physics. Cambridge University. Published October 17, 2025. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2025-1dsrv
Obidi, John Onimisi (17th October 2025). On the Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): An Alternative Path toward Quantum Gravity and the Unification of Physics. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30337396.v2
Obidi, John Onimisi. 2025. A Simple Explanation of the Unifying Mathematical Architecture of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): Crucial Elements of ToE as a Field Theory. Cambridge University. Published October 20, 2025. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2025-bpvf3
Obidi, John Onimisi (15 November 2025). The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) Goes Beyond Holographic Pseudo-Entropy: From Boundary Diagnostics to a Universal Entropic Field Theory. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30627200.v1
Obidi, John Onimisi. Unified Field Architecture of Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/59276 (accessed on 19 November 2025).

Further Resources on the Theory of Entropicity (ToE):

Theory of Entropicity (ToE) by John Onimisi Obidi

Wikipedia

Thursday, 20 November 2025

Philosophical and Conceptual Differences Between the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) and Einstein's Theory of Relativity (ToR)

Entropy as a Field: Can the Spectral Obidi Action Go Beyond Araki Relative Entropy? A Most Radical Conceptualization of a Unified Field in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

Entropy as a Field: Can the Spectral Obidi Action Go Beyond Araki Relative Entropy? A Most Radical Conceptualization of a Unified Field in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

Introduction: The Measure That Became a Candidate for a Field

Araki Relative Entropy: The Established Framework

The Spectral Obidi Action: A Radical Reinterpretation

Why No One Else Has Tried This

Is SOA Valid or Useful?

The Stakes for ToE

Conclusion: A Bold but Risky Leap

References

Further Resources on the Theory of Entropicity (ToE):

Litmus Test of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): If Einstein’s Relativity is Emergent from Entropy, then the Observer is Dethroned, and Physics Gains a New Foundation in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

Litmus Test of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): If Einstein’s Relativity is Emergent from Entropy, then the Observer is Dethroned, and Physics Gains a New Foundation in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

In Einstein’s Relativity

In the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

Why This Matters

The Challenge

Einstein’s Relativity: Observer-Centric

ToE’s Reinterpretation: Entropy-Centric

Why This Is a Crucial Test

The Stakes

Further Expository Insights

The No‑Rush Theorem as a Constraint on Reality

Observation as Entropy‑Dependent

Philosophical Implications

Physical Implications

References

Author’s Preface and Methodological Statement for the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): An Unapologetic Introduction in Defense of Obidi's New Theory of Reality—On the Trajectory of Discovery and the Road Less Traveled

Report Abuse