In the relativistic transactional picture (RTI), spacetime is an emergent construct. It emerges from specific interactions at the quantum level (i.e., transactions). This process creates a metrical structure; thus, RTI allows the harmonious integration of quantum theory and general relativity, two theoretical domains generally thought to be in conflict. I’ve just completed a collaboration with researcher Andreas Schlatter in which the quantitative specifics of this development are laid out. The bottom line: quantum theory and general relativity are now reconciled and unified. Details can be found here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.04025
Transactions Complete Entropic Gravity
Published
Transactional Interpretation 
Hi
You may be interested in this publication:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331302828_Emergent_dark_gravity_from_nonholographic_screens/fulltext/5c729cf8299bf1268d212fa4/Emergent-dark-gravity-from-nonholographic-screens.pdf?origin=profileFeaturedResearchPublicationItem
David Thornton
Sent from my iPad
>
Ruth, I have really become interested in this whole approach to understanding gravity from a thermodynamics perspective rather than from a mechanics perspective that makes assumptions about the inertial foundation of gravity that may not be true. This is coming out of my reading of Robert Rosen who makes a very clear categorical distinction between ‘simple’ systems that admit to the mechanistic formalism and that it entails–which include some assumptions–like computability and state-based ontology–on which Rosen’s work casts dispersions, and ‘complex’ systems that are more like living organisms for which a thermodynamic approach may be more appropriate. Here is Rosen’s claim drawn from his introduction to ‘Essays on Life Itself’: “I claim that Gödelian noncomputability results are a symptom, arising from within mathematics itself, indicating that we are trying to solve problems in too limited a universe of discourse.” The claim is that the mechanistic formalism as a basic model is inadequate and misleading–effectiveness does not admit to computability. And I don’t think that the implications of Gödel have really sunk in because of how deep the belief in computability goes. And in the universality of a belief in the exclusivity of ‘inertial’ mechanistic forces and the basic difference between a ‘response’ to a force and the ‘generation’ of a force. Rosen’s claim that ‘complex’ systems which manifest ‘closed causal loops’ do not admit to state descriptions–do not have an ‘ontology of states’–suggests that one must turn to a non-mechanistic thermodynamic approach. If the universe is composed of complex systems resembling the function of living organisms, and it behaves more like a ‘complex’ organism than a ‘simple’ mechanism–which is Rosen’s claim–then a whole-system understanding that thermodynamics provides may actually be more relevant (with the generalization of the concept of ‘entropy’, for example) than mechanics. Which is a point made by Rosen in ‘Essays on Life Itself’. There is also the question about how this all fits together with quantum physics (which is not necessarily a ‘mechanics’!) which is addressed in this remarkable paper by Slobodan Perović : ROBERT ROSEN’S RELATIONALIST UNDERSTANDING OF BIOLOGICAL STATES AND QUANTUM MECHANICS.
https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.2298%2Ftheo1803005p
The bottom line on this is that a thermodynamic approach for seeking an explanation for gravity makes more sense than trying to explain gravity using the mechanical formalism and its associated assumption.