The Resolution State Interface: Theory of Universal Relativity

RESOLUTION STATE INTERFACE (RSI)

The Resolution State Interface is my attempt to describe physical interaction with one unified, deterministic, scalar “ledger” and one stability rule, instead of treating reality as a patchwork of separate force laws, vector fields, and fundamental probabilities.

BIRD’S EYE VIEW

Modern physics is astonishingly accurate. We can predict spectral lines, lensing, orbital mechanics, decay statistics, and field behavior with a precision that would have been unimaginable not that long ago. But accuracy is not the same thing as completion. Right now we still rely on multiple “languages” to talk about nature, and those languages do not merge into one clean accounting system.

Quantum mechanics often treats probability as if it is fundamental. Classical field theories lean on vector fields and continuous descriptions. Relativity treats gravity as geometry. These frameworks work extremely well where they work, and I am not trying to erase that success. RSI starts from the opposite attitude: take what experiments already force us to accept, and ask whether the underlying machinery can be reduced.

RSI is my attempt to build a single explanatory ledger underneath those successful approximations. If it turns out to be right, it should not destroy modern physics. It should explain why the current tools work, show how they relate, and offer a more unified way of describing the same underlying behavior.

WHAT I AM ACTUALLY CLAIMING

There are two layers to what I am doing, and I keep them separate.

The first layer is conceptual. I think reality makes the most sense when treated as an updating present state, not as a block of equally real past and future objects. That is the same broad metaphysical posture I take in Persistent Present Determinism (PPD). It is a way of framing what “time” is and what it means for something to exist.

The second layer is technical. RSI is the physics-facing attempt to express interaction, persistence, and change using a small set of primitives and a single closed accounting rule. This layer is not automatically a replacement for modern physics. It might end up replacing some equations in some domains, or it might function as a deeper translation layer that sits underneath existing formalisms and explains why their approximations work.

So I am not asking anyone to choose between RSI and modern physics as if they are mutually exclusive. I am trying to add an underlying interface model that can live inside the same experimental reality modern physics already describes.

THE TECHNICAL HEART

RSI is built around a small number of quantities that are meant to do all the work.

I use anchor energy, written EA, to represent the “bound” side of a system, the portion that functions like an identity-supporting reservoir. I use field energy, written EF, to represent the propagated or recursive side of a system, the portion that functions like active tension distributed through layers.

I do not distribute geometry everywhere throughout the theory. I confine geometry to a single term called the anchor plane, AP, which carries the distance and area scaling. That confinement is not a stylistic choice. It is a discipline rule. I am trying to prevent the theory from turning into an anything-goes curve fit where new geometric factors get smuggled in whenever something is difficult.

From these pieces, RSI defines a stability verdict called the resolution state:

S = EA / AP

In the RSI framing, S is the present stability margin. When S is at least 1, the configuration is resolved and stable. When S drops below 1, the configuration fails the “existence gate” and must deterministically transition or collapse unless conditions change.

Change is tracked by a second gate, the deterministic collapse ratio:

Dc = EF / EA

Dc is not meant to be a probabilistic dial. It is a trigger condition. When Dc crosses its threshold, transition happens. When it stays below threshold, persistence holds. Orientation is handled through a scalar sign factor, θ, inside the recursion engine rather than through a full vector field ontology.

The bookkeeping itself is forced to close in the simplest possible way:

ΣE = EF + EA

That is the spine. Everything else in the RSI program is supposed to be an overlay, a calibration, or a domain-specific application of the same scalar ledger.

This is also where RSI takes a hard stance that is easy to misunderstand. When people hear “no probabilities,” they think I am denying statistical patterns. I am not. I am saying something narrower and more structural: the probability-like spread in outcomes can be treated as the appearance created by micro-variation in conditions we do not control, not as evidence that reality is fundamentally stochastic. In that view, the statistics are real patterns in our observations, but the underlying rule is still deterministic.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL MOTIVATION

I have a practical motivation and a philosophical motivation, and I do not hide either one.

Practically, I want unification without multiplying primitives. If we live in one world, it is methodologically cleaner to have one accounting system that does not require switching metaphysical languages depending on scale. RSI is an attempt at strict reduction: one kind of stability statement, one kind of collapse statement, one ledger, one place where geometry lives, and one recursion engine that explains why different “forces” look different.

Philosophically, I do not treat physics as just a calculator. A theory of nature is also a commitment about what kinds of things are fundamentally real and what kinds of explanations are structurally allowed. My broader work pushes toward determinism, toward present-tense stability conditions, and away from infinities as explanatory defaults. RSI is the attempt to express that stance in a physics-facing way that can be checked against data, not just argued about in words.

That is also why I treat RSI as compatible with PPD rather than competing with it. PPD is a conceptual claim about what time and existence mean. RSI is the attempt to model how interaction would look if reality is an updating present with deterministic stability and change conditions. They are related, but they are not the same thing.

WHY ADVANCING DOES NOT MEAN ERASING

One of the easiest ways to misread a new framework is to assume it is declaring war on what came before. That is not my approach.

If an existing equation gives correct answers in a domain, that is not something to dismiss. It is evidence that the equation is tracking a real pattern in nature. The RSI goal is to explain why that pattern holds and to express it in a single ledger form. That is why I treat RSI as a translation attempt rather than an insult to the field.

I also make room for the possibility that the familiar “vector” descriptions remain useful as overlays even if they are not fundamental. In other words, even if the world is scalar-ledger-driven underneath, we might still do a lot of practical work with higher-level representations because they are convenient, efficient, and historically proven.

So advancing does not mean erasing. It means compressing and connecting. If RSI is real, it should preserve the predictive power of modern physics where modern physics is already successful, while reducing the number of independent conceptual machines we need to carry in our heads.

WHERE THIS COULD LAND

I am honest about the fact that RSI is a long project. It is not only a claim, it is a program. It is proposing a re-expression of multiple domains under one formal spine, and that requires calibration strategies, reproducible tables, cross-domain checks, and clear kill-tests.

It is also why I keep the question of “replacement” open. RSI might replace some equations if it can do the same job with fewer primitives and tighter closure discipline. Or it might function as a deeper interface model that helps explain how the current frameworks connect, and why their approximations work so well in their lanes even if the global picture is still incomplete.

Either outcome would count as success in the spirit of the project, because the point is not to win a turf war. The point is to get closer to a single coherent picture of what reality is doing.

THE ROAD AHEAD

I treat RSI as falsifiable in a blunt way. If a phenomenon demands extra degrees of freedom beyond the scalar ledger, or demands geometry outside AP, or violates the stability and collapse threshold rules, then RSI either has to be revised in a visible way or it fails. A unification claim should not be able to hide behind interpretive flexibility.

So the preview version is simple. I take the accuracy of modern experiments seriously, I treat the current landscape as incomplete rather than “wrong,” and I am trying to compress the machinery into one deterministic scalar ledger with explicit stability and collapse gates. If it succeeds, RSI will not erase modern physics. It will explain it, translate it, and connect its domains under one cleaner picture of what the universe is doing.