Finite Propagation and the Regime Structure of Reality — Classicality and Geometry as Constraint-Limited Phenomena

Abstract

This paper develops a unified ontological framework in which quantum indeterminacy, classical determinism, and gravitational structure are interpreted not as manifestations of distinct fundamental laws, but as regime-dependent consequences of a single physical constraint: finite propagation at the invariant speed c . We argue that the transition from reversible physical possibility to irreversible physical fact is regulated by the finite rate at which interaction outcomes can propagate, accumulate, and stabilize. Irreversibility is tied explicitly to entropy-producing interactions subject to causal delay, grounding the framework in nonequilibrium thermodynamics rather than measurement postulates. We introduce a phenomenological order parameter, commitment density (ρ commit ), defined as the locally accumulated history of irreversible constraint formation under finite propagation. Distinct physical regimes arise when this quantity crosses a critical percolation threshold (ρ c ), yielding three ontological domains: quantum under-representation (ρ commit ≪ ρ c , insufficient closure), classical balance (ρ commit ~ρ c , writable yet stable), and cosmological over-representation (ρ commit ≫ ρ c , saturated and non-writable). Key terms are defined in the main text. This regime structure provides a unified reinterpretation of quantum measurement, classical determinism, and horizon formation. Event horizons are generalized as the observational signature of causal saturation, appearing wherever accumulated closure renders regions non-writable. Time emerges from cyclic but asymmetric closure processes whose accumulated bias produces temporal direction. The framework makes specific falsifiable predictions: commitment should be gradual and resolvable in time-resolved decoherence experiments; gravitational-wave memory should be detectable as permanent relational displacement; and the quantum-classical boundary should depend on commitment density rather than mass or scale alone. Four explicit conditions that would falsify the framework are specified in Appendix A .