Project 001 · CBR-OEN

Can geometry emerge from computation that never encodes it?

The CBR Open Experimental Network is an open, distributed collaboration investigating whether dimensionality, topology and physical behaviour can arise from minimal computational systems — with no spatial structure written in as a prior.

See the experimental program How to take part Listen to the primer
CBR-OEN / FOUNDING QUESTION Seven rungs, each stronger than the last — and each can fail.
10

experiments, CBR-E001 to CBR-E010, from dimension to gravity

H1–H7

hypotheses, each independently challengeable

R3

institutional replication, required for strong claims

7

participant roles — none require taking a position

The founding principle

CBR-OEN does not exist to prove Compute-Based Reality. It exists to make it testable.

Participation never requires accepting CBR as a theory of reality. You might join because you think it's promising, because you think it's unlikely, or because the mathematics is interesting on its own terms. Every one of those is an equally legitimate reason.

Built around cooperative disagreement.

The founding question

The emergence chain

From computation to physics.

Five stages, each built only from the one before it. No spatial coordinates are written in at the start — anything spatial has to appear on its own.

  1. Stage 01

    Computation

    Minimal relational rules, with no spatial coordinates.

  2. Stage 02

    Relations

    Persistent structure appears as a web of connections.

  3. Stage 03

    Topology

    Connectivity begins to behave like a manifold.

  4. Stage 04

    Geometry

    Distance, dimension and curvature become measurable.

  5. Stage 05

    Physics

    Known physical behaviour recovered — quantitatively.

Computation → Relations → Topology → Geometry → Physics · each arrow is a hypothesis that can fail on its own.

The founding scientific question

One question, broken into claims that can each fail.

The question decomposes into progressively stronger propositions. Each must be independently challengeable.

Hypothesis ladder

Seven rungs, each stronger than the last.

Q · the whole program in one sentence

Can computational systems with no predefined spatial geometry generate persistent structures whose large-scale behaviour exhibits dimensionality, manifold topology, geometry and eventually physical dynamics?

  • H1

    Effective dimensionality can emerge.

  • H2

    Particular dimensions can behave as attractors.

  • H3

    Dimensionally emergent structures can also be manifold-like.

  • H4

    Manifold structure can be dynamically stable.

  • H5

    Effective metric structure can emerge.

  • H6

    Persistent structures can influence emergent geometry.

  • H7

    Known physical behaviour can be recovered quantitatively.

  • Failure is a finding

    If the ladder breaks at H3, that tells us something real about computation and geometry.

How a result gets defined

Every major experiment carries three perspectives.

Before execution, wherever possible, three roles agree on what would count — so an experiment isn't defined only by the people who expect a particular answer.

Proponent WHY IT MIGHT HOLD Evidence Hypothesis

+ Proponent

Explains the case for the hypothesis and what a supporting result would look like — the constructive reading of the evidence.

Sceptic WHAT ELSE COULD EXPLAIN IT Result Alternatives

+ Sceptic

Defines competing explanations, artefacts and the failure criteria that would sink the claim — before any data exists.

Verifier WAS THE TEST MET 2/3 Agreed criteria Verdict

+ Verifier

Determines only whether the agreed test was actually satisfied — independent of who hoped for which outcome.

The initial experimental program

Ten experiments, from dimension to gravity.

A successful criticism is not an obstacle to the network. It is a contribution to it.

Experiments

CBR-E001 to CBR-E010.

The program runs from the first testable question up to quantitative physics. Each experiment carries a persistent identifier and a version, and each is designed to be able to fail independently of the others.

  • CBR-E001emergence

    Can effective dimensionality emerge from geometry-free relational computation?

  • CBR-E002emergence

    Does dimension-blind selection generate reproducible dimensional attractors?

  • CBR-E003topology

    Do structures with d ≈ 3 satisfy local manifold conditions?

  • CBR-E004topology

    Can explicit simplicial computation maintain stable 3-manifold topology?

  • CBR-E005topology

    Does topology-blind selection suppress topology-destroying defects?

  • CBR-E006geometry

    Can computational transition cost produce an emergent metric?

  • CBR-E007geometry

    Can persistent computational structures modify that metric?

  • CBR-E008geometry

    Can geodesic-like attraction emerge without gravity being programmed in?

  • CBR-E009physics

    Can Lorentz-like causal behaviour emerge from local computation?

  • CBR-E010physics

    Can the system quantitatively recover known gravitational behaviour?

What counts as reproduced

Three levels of agreement.

Running the same code is not the same as independently reproducing an experiment. Strong claims normally require the third.

  • R1

    Computational reproducibility

    The same implementation and the same seed reproduce the result. The floor: it confirms the pipeline is deterministic and intact.

  • R2

    Independent reproducibility

    An independent implementation — built from the specification, not the reference code — reproduces equivalent results.

  • R3

    Institutional replication

    Multiple independent institutions reproduce the finding. The most significant form of agreement the network recognises.

    REQUIRED FOR STRONG CLAIMS

The primary artefacts

The specification defines the experiment. The code merely implements it.

A preregistered specification is frozen and hashed before results exist. Every run then emits a hash-addressed manifest — so provenance travels with the evidence, not alongside it.

CBR-E001 · specification.yaml
experiment: CBR-E001
version: 1.0
title:
  Emergent dimensionality from
  relational computation
hypothesis:
  # effective dimension may emerge
  from: geometry-free computation
null_hypothesis:
  No reproducible dimensional
  attractor occurs.
initial_conditions:
  geometry_encoded: false
  spatial_coordinates: false
excluded_objectives:
  - spatial_dimension
  - spectral_dimension
  - manifold_score
randomness:
  deterministic_from_seed: true
analysis:
  preregistered: true
run · manifest.json
{
  "experiment": "CBR-E004:v1.0",
  "implementation": "JULIA-02",
  "institution": "NODE-A17",
  "seed": 428972114,
  "code_hash": "9f2c…a1",
  "specification_hash": "c7e0…4d",
  "environment_hash": "11ab…9f",
  "input_hash": "6d3e…22",
  "result_hash": "be91…0c",
  "started": "2026-06-04T08:12Z",
  "completed": "2026-06-04T09:47Z",
  "status": "complete"
}

# a run is not an output file —
# it is a hash of everything
# that produced the output.

Ways to contribute

Take one role. You don't have to take a position.

A hypothesis group never decides whether its own hypothesis succeeded — separation of roles is designed in.

Roles

Seven roles, plus a reference sandbox.

Institutions and researchers undertake one or more defined roles.

  • 01

    Hypothesis

    State the claim, the null, and its falsification conditions.

  • 02

    Mathematical verification

    Define or review the dimension, homology and manifold tests.

  • 03

    Implementation

    Build to the spec in any language — independent code is encouraged.

  • 04

    Execution node

    Run registered batches on university, HPC or independent compute.

  • 05

    Analysis

    Perform statistics — often blinded to which rule or code produced the data.

  • 06

    Replication

    Repeat an experiment independently, with no hand in the original build.

  • 07

    Adversarial review

    Hunt for artefacts, hidden assumptions and alternative explanations.

  • Reference

    Reference sandbox

    CBR-Lab provides reference results — but the spec, not the code, is authoritative.

Minimal commitment

An institution can contribute just one element.

No department needs to endorse an unconventional theory to take part. It only needs to do the thing it is already good at.

  • 01

    Mathematics department

    Review the definition of a manifold or homology test.

  • 02

    Computer-science lab

    Build an independent implementation from the specification.

  • 03

    HPC centre

    Execute registered run batches across a seed range.

  • 04

    Statistics group

    Review the preregistration and the inference procedure.

  • 05

    Physics department

    Assess correspondence with known physical theory.

  • 06

    Complexity institute

    Develop alternative minimal computational rule families.

  • 07

    Graduate research group

    Attempt an independent replication of a published finding.

  • 08

    Sceptical research team

    Attempt to falsify the experiment. A good challenge counts.

Resources

Listen, read the deck, inspect the source.

The founding paper, the protocol slides and the full evidence system live in the open repository. Start with the spoken primer.

CBR-OEN · The invitation

Propose tests. Implement specifications. Replicate, challenge, analyse.