Can someone help me understand graph split offs, gravitation and black holes in the model? I feel like I'm asking a question without having fully understood it. (That said, there is a ton to understand. ;-))

Didn't Stephen say at one point, that black holes might be represented by having a part of the graph be split off? But a split graph would imply that no interactions between its parts are possible anymore, wouldn't it? (Most of what I'll write next is based on the assumption that both of these questions can be answered with a yes.) Or was that split off only for a part (the very core / singularity) of the black hole?

But black holes do have interactions with their environment.

• 1.1. gravitational pull in both directions.
• 1.2. movement through space, which changes the location of the graviational pull.
• 1.3. addition of matter to the core singularity.

Regarding 1.1 and 1.2: Do we have a model for how gravity works yet? We might assume that some kind of structure is left on the graph that might still reshape it in such a way to excert a gravitational pull and be itself a moving object within the graph. Does that make sense?

Regarding 1.3: If we assume that at least the core of the black hole is a distinct graph on its own, then any addition of matter would require that addition to become a splitted off graph by itself, rather than interacting with that part which has already been split off. (That split off could occur in chunks of equal or non-equal size. It might even occur on a node by node basis, creating the maximum number of possible splitted off graphs.)

This however would require two things to be true:

• 2.1. That hawking radiation and by extension black hole evaporation doesn't exist.
• 2.2. That the universe's rule includes some aspect that creates nodes without any connections.

I'm not entirely sure at this point whether or for that matter what it is I don't understand. But if we assume that the universe is based on one core rule, and further, that this rule is only applied whenever the pattern for its condition is met, then wouldn't that imply that whenever the rule is activated (a step in processing on the graph occurs), all the graph transformations that are specified in the rule would have to be applied on the graph at the location where the rule is applied.

This however leaves us with two interesting possibilites:

• 3.1 Either the rule for the universe includes a transformation that disconnects one part of the graph entirely at every application of the rule. (Is such a rule even possible?)
• 3.2 Or it includes a partial disconnection that only under special circumstances (such as those for a black hole might be) leads to a full disconnection (split off) of one or more nodes.

If 3.1 is true, then this would imply a shrinking of the graph under every application of the rule unless the rule also includes an addition of new nodes into the graph that is equal or greater to that which is taken away. This would go in favor of the one-node-by-one-node split off idea. But would not explain (at least right now, to me ;-)) , why the net balance of split offs might be negative under certain circumstances such as black holes. Or, if one assumes, that it isn't negative, then that leaves the question of where all that extra stuff that is added to the universe goes when a large amount of nodes are split off from a black hole.

Note: Maybe it's possible to solve this issue (if it indeed is one) with introducing a functional split off. An actual split off would split the graph in two or more parts. A functional split off would "only" make a part of the graph inaccessible to other parts of it under the application of the rule, or at least would make access a one way street to a subset of particle representations in the graph. (e.g. matter going into, but not out of the black hole) This idea seems interesting, as it seems to solve some problems and might give hints as to how matter needs to be represented. After all, not any representation of matter would allow for a functional split off, whether that is functionally complete or a one way street.

3.2 The partial split off: This would imply that only under unique circumstances, such as pherhaps those of a black hole, the rule would lead to a full split off. Which would raise the question of what a graph for a given rule would have to look like in order to lead to a split. And then again, how large that split would be. Possibly, only certain structures can be split off? Maybe, it has something to do with the density of connections?

I'm going to leave it at that now, as this text has grown long enough.

I know that this is all a lot of what ifs and possible misunderstandings. Please feel free to address any part of it. And I think I might have to look up the existing thoughts on gravity in the model.