If anyone can find a flaw in this logic, I'd love to see it.



Universe Postulate

There is one universe with one set of laws and one set of initial conditions

Mind Postulate

The mind is a self-referential axiomatic sub-system of the universe

Measurement Postulate

Measurements such as distance, duration, and mass are statements of the mind

Relative Measurement Postulate

Measurements at high speeds vary between minds, a phenomenon known as length contraction and time dilation


A theory consistent with these postulates does not exist in mainstream physics, because special relativity fails the first postulate. Here's why:

If the universe's laws include space-time, then the initial conditions, the inputs that special relativity requires to calculate length contraction, must contain relative velocity, the measurements of an observer. If the initial conditions are the measurements of an observer, then the measurements cannot include information about other observer's outside the original observer's lightcone. Therefore, in order for the laws of special relativity to predict relativistic measurements for every observer in the universe, a unique set of initial conditions is required for every observer.

Which contradicts the universe postulate: there is supposed to be one universe with one set of laws and one set of initial conditions.

There might be some new and interesting way to modify space-time so that a single set of inputs predicts relativistic effects for every observer, but that has yet to be created and there is a perfectly good reason to think that it will never be created: special relativity describes a static universe in 4 dimensions where the past, present, and future are defined together, not a universe whose state is constantly progressing from the initial state according to the laws.

Special relativity and the universe postulate are fundamentally incompatible.