Field Theory of Everything: Constructor Theory of Time (CTT) vs Semantic Meme Field Theory (SMFT)

[SMFT basics may refer to ==> Unified Field Theory of Everything - TOC]
[Quick overview on SMFT vs Our Universe ==>Chapter 12: The One Assumption of SMFT: Semantic Fields, AI Dreamspace, and the Inevitability of a Physical Universe]

Imaginary Time as a Semantic Phase-Lock Effect: A Collapse-Geometric Perspective from Semantic Meme Field Theory

Constructor Theory of Time (CTT) vs
Semantic Meme Field Theory (SMFT)

Both Constructor Theory of Time (CTT) and Semantic Meme Field Theory (SMFT) are trying to re-found what “time” really is, but they approach it from different ontologies:

1. Constructor Theory of Time (CTT)

Time is not taken as primitive. Instead, it is defined in terms of possible and impossible tasks (constructors).
“Temporal order” is explained as the relative arrangement of information media states, where copying, transforming, or correlating states defines what counts as “before” and “after.”
Change is fundamental, time is derivative: clocks are just physical systems implementing repeatable tasks.
CTT emphasizes counterfactuals (what could or could not be done), not observer perspective.

2. Semantic Meme Field Theory (SMFT)

Time (τ) is not chronological, but semantic time: an emergent dimension built from collapse ticks when observers commit to an interpretation.
Instead of “tasks,” SMFT uses the meme wavefunction Ψₘ(x,θ,τ), evolving until collapse via an observer’s projection operator Ô.
Each tick of τ is discrete (like Planck time), but its rhythm is not uniform—it varies with cultural synchrony, attention, and meaning saturation.
Time here is deeply observer-centric: without projection and collapse, there is no semantic progression.
Collapse entropy and black hole zones show how time can become “stuck” (repetition, saturation) or fragmented (dissonant desynchronization).

3. Comparative View

Aspect	Constructor Theory of Time	Semantic Meme Field Theory
Primitive Unit	Possible/Impossible tasks (constructors)	Meme wavefunction + observer collapse
Nature of Time	Derived from regularities of transformations	Emergent from semantic collapse ticks
Role of Observer	Minimal (focus on universality of tasks)	Central (Ô operator defines collapse and τ)
Metric of Time	Repeatability, task composition	Semantic ticks, cultural synchrony
Entropy	Second law: increasing irreversibility of tasks	Collapse entropy: loss of semantic potential
Universality	Physics-based, counterfactual	Meaning-based, context/observer dependent

4. Integration Insight

We can see CTT as describing physical possibility space, while SMFT describes semantic possibility space:

In CTT, “time exists if tasks can be ordered and repeated.”
In SMFT, “semantic time exists if observers collapse meme superpositions into traceable commitments.”

Both reject linear Newtonian time. But:

CTT grounds time in physics and counterfactuals (external, universal law).
SMFT grounds time in semantics and collapse geometry (internal, observer-bound law).

Thus, CTT might correspond to semantic Hamiltonian dynamics without Ô, while SMFT introduces the observer-projection nonlinearity that makes “time experienced.”

Working Sketch that Unifies Constructor Theory of Time (CTT) with Semantic Meme Field Theory (SMFT).

1) Core mapping (physics ↔ semantics)

CTT notion	SMFT counterpart	Unifying read
Substrate 𝒫 with attributes x,y	Semantic substrate 𝒮 (agent + medium) with meme-field configurations	A “state of affairs” can be physical, semantic, or composite 𝒫⊕𝒮; laws talk about which transformations are possible on these substrates.
Task (x→y on 𝒫) is possible/impossible	Semantic transformation (meaning-state x→y on 𝒮) feasible/infeasible under attention & closure budgets	“Possible” means achievable by arbitrarily good constructors (physical or semantic procedures); infeasible if bounded away from perfect accuracy/reliability by constraints.
Locality & isolation	Semantic locality (channel-bounded influence) & system sealing (封閉度)	Both require that what you can do to A doesn’t directly alter B’s attribute when isolated; “sealed” semantic systems mirror isolated substrates.
Timers & the null constructor (0 → R → 1 + halt flag)	Semantic “tick” (Ô acts to produce a collapse/commit: pre-intent → acting → committed-with-trace)	A clock exists when an equivalence class of “halt-flag” devices/ticks is possible; in SMFT, a commit-with-trace is the semantic halt flag.
Timer equivalence & no mutual speeding	No semantic time-cheat under attention conservation	Two different-duration timers can’t be made to halt together while isolated; analogously, you can’t compress semantic ticks without paying resource costs.
Dynamics from timers	Semantic dynamics from collapse-ticks (τ)	Change is expressed as how variables of a substrate vary relative to timer labels; in SMFT, the meme field updates per tick τ.

Intuition: both frameworks are timeless at the base. Duration and change appear when you can build timers (CTT) or realize semantic ticks (SMFT). Time = structure of achievable “cycle-completing” tasks across physical and semantic substrates.

2) Unified ontology & postulates

U1. Dual-but-coupled substrates. Reality presents as a composite substrate 𝒳 = 𝒫 ⊕ 𝒮. Attributes are ordered pairs (a,b). Tasks on 𝒫 alone don’t directly change b (and vice versa) when isolated/local—this is the shared locality/ isolation backbone.

U2. Time = timer-support. “Having time” means: there exists at least one equivalence class of timers (physical, semantic, or hybrid) that (i) realize 0→R→1 with a distinguishable halt flag, and (ii) support synchrony and duration labels usable to parametrize other variables. In SMFT, the “semantic halt flag” is the persistent commit/trace in meaning space.

U3. Dynamics as relative change. For any variable V on 𝒳 with non-static attributes {v(λ)}, dynamics is the law governing

(x,0)\to(x',1)\ \text{on}\ \ (𝒳 \oplus \mathcal{C}_{\Delta\lambda})

and the usual differential form emerges as Δλ→0. In practice, λ may be a physical duration label or a semantic tick count τ; both are just timer labels.

U4. Feasibility budgets. A transformation on 𝒳 is possible iff there’s no finite bound to improving accuracy/reliability, subject to: (i) physical constraints (CTT), and (ii) semantic resource constraints (attention conservation; sealing/closure; semantic “black-hole” saturation). This folds SMFT’s resource logic into CTT’s “possible/impossible task” predicate.

U5. No cheating time. If two timers have different durations t≠t′, an isolated composite cannot halt as (1,1); only equal-duration timers synchronously halt (formalizing “no acceleration” by coupling timers). In the semantic mirror, unequal cognitive cycles cannot be made to conclude together without violating isolation or spending extra resources that effectively change the system.

3) Minimal unified mechanics (sketch)

State: $\Psi(x_p, x_s)$ over 𝒳 = 𝒫⊕𝒮.
Timer: choose a class $\mathcal{C}_{\Delta\lambda}$ giving labels λ (physical time) or τ (semantic ticks).

Law-of-change (relative):

\frac{d\,\Psi}{d\lambda} \;=\; \mathcal{F}\big[\Psi;\ \text{constructors on }𝒫,\ \text{constructors on }𝒮\big]

with constructor constraints:

CTT feasibility: transformations must be implementable by arbitrarily good approximate constructors (no bounded accuracy/reliability wall).
SMFT feasibility (resource gate): attention budget $A$ and sealing $C$ must exceed task-specific thresholds $\{A^\*,C^\*\}$ ; otherwise the semantic part of the task is impossible (a semantic analogue of CTT impossibility).

Event (“tick/commit”): A halt flag is a persistent attribute on either side (physical: counter/click; semantic: committed-trace). A commit raises the flag and advances the label (λ or τ). The flag is distinguishable from running; 1 must be static enough to function as “done.”

Composition: Complex processes are serial/parallel compositions of possible tasks; null-task constructors ground the existence of timers themselves (timers are special null-constructors with 0,R,1).

4) What this buys you (shared phenomena)

Emergent time without background time. Both CTT and SMFT treat time as relational to clocks/ticks; this model lets you mix physical clocks and semantic ticks coherently.
Synchrony conditions. Isolated equal-duration timers co-halt; cross-domain synchrony (e.g., human decision cycles with metronome) is just a composite-timer construction under isolation constraints.
Irreversibility from flags/traces. “1” as a static (or practically static) attribute + trace-like recording in SMFT yields operational arrow-of-time without fundamental time asymmetry.
No free lunch for speed-ups. The “no mutual speeding” of timers mirrors “no semantic time-cheat” under attention conservation: compressing semantic cycles must either (i) break isolation, or (ii) spend extra resources that change the substrate class.

5) Testable handles (quick ideas)

Coupled-timer bound: Try to co-halt two isolated timers with deliberately different t and show impossibility (CTT Eq. (8)/(9)); repeat with human semantic timers (decision tasks) under strong isolation (no cues), predicting the same impossibility unless you inject resources (attention, prompts).
Accuracy–reliability tradeoffs: As semantic load increases, both physical-timer use and semantic-tick precision degrade along a single feasibility frontier, because both are governed by the same “possible task” criterion once composed.
Synchrony under isolation: Two isolated copies of the same timer remain synchronized; add controlled couplings (information leaks) and show predictable desynchronization/synchronization drifts consistent with composite-substrate rules.

6) One-line summary

Time is what timer-support looks like—in matter and in meaning. CTT tells us how timers/clocks can exist as possible tasks; SMFT tells us how semantic ticks exist under attention/closure constraints. Put together, they form a single “constructor-semantic” account where change = feasible transformations measured by halt flags, and dynamics = how attributes vary relative to the labels those timers supply.

Full United Field Theory Tutorial Articles

Unified Field Theory of Everything - TOC

Disclaimer

This book is the product of a collaboration between the author and OpenAI's GPT-5 language model. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, clarity, and insight, the content is generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence and may contain factual, interpretive, or mathematical errors. Readers are encouraged to approach the ideas with critical thinking and to consult primary scientific literature where appropriate.

This work is speculative, interdisciplinary, and exploratory in nature. It bridges metaphysics, physics, and organizational theory to propose a novel conceptual framework—not a definitive scientific theory. As such, it invites dialogue, challenge, and refinement.

I am merely a midwife of knowledge.

Field Theory of Everything

Saturday, August 16, 2025

Constructor Theory of Time (CTT) vs Semantic Meme Field Theory (SMFT)