Comparative Analysis Between John Onimisi Obidi's Theory of Entropicity (ToE) and Waldemar Marek Feldt's FELDT–HIGGS Universal Bridge (F–HUB) Theory

Comparative Analysis Between John Onimisi Obidi’s Theory of Entropicity (ToE) and Waldemar Marek Feldt’s FELDT–HIGGS Universal Bridge (F–HUB) Theory John Onimisi Obidi *Independent Research Lab, The Aether. ABSTRACT In the unfolding landscape of twenty-first century theoretical physics, the pursuit of a unified description of nature remains among the most profound challenges. This paper presents a detailed comparative analysis between two emerging frameworks—John Onimisi Obidi’s Theory of Entropicity (ToE) and Waldemar Marek Feldt’s FELDT–HIGGS Universal Bridge (F–HUB) Theory—each of which offers a novel reinterpretation of mass, gravity, entropy, and information. The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) establishes entropy not as a statistical by-product of disorder but as the fundamental field and causal substrate of physical reality. It reconstructs gravitation, time, and quantum behavior from the dynamics of an entropy field governed by the Obidi Action and the Vuli-Ndlela Integral. Conversely, the FELDT–HIGGS Universal Bridge (F–HUB) formulates an informational architecture of the universe in which mass and spacetime emerge from quantum information structuring mediated by the Higgs field. Its central relation, the F–HUB Master Equation, integrates thermodynamic constants to link information, mass, and entropy within a unified algebraic framework. This study systematically compares the philosophical premises, mathematical foundations, and physical implications of both theories. It further examines whether F–HUB’s informational emergence model can be interpreted as a subset or limiting case of ToE’s entropic dynamics. By contrasting the causality orders— F–HUB: Information → Entropy → Mass → Gravity → Spacetime and ToE: Entropy → Information → Mass → Motion → Spacetime —the paper argues that ToE provides a deeper, first-principles formulation of physical law in which entropy is the generative field underlying information and structure. Both frameworks together signal a paradigm shift toward postEinsteinian physics grounded not in geometry, but in informational–entropic causation. KEYWORDS: Entropy field theory, Entropicity, FELDT–HIGGS, Higgs mechanism, Information physics, Obidi Ac-tion, PostEinsteinian unification, Quantum gravity, Thermodynamics of spacetime, Vuli-Ndlela Integral t Further resources on the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) are available at: https://theoryofentropicity.blogspot.com International Journal of Current Science Research and Review ISSN: 2581-8341 Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11-21, Impact Factor: 8.048 IJCSRR @ 2025 www.ijcsrr.org 5642 *Corresponding Author: John Onimisi Obidi Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 Available at: www.ijcsrr.org Page No. 5642-5657 1 Introduction For more than a century, physics has sought a single unifying principle capable of connecting the thermodynamic, relativistic, and quantum domains into one coherent description of nature. Einstein’s general relativity endowed spacetime with geometry but left the origins of entropy, information, and quantization unexplained. Quantum mechanics, for its part, provided predictive precision but relied on statistical postulates detached from physical cause. In recent decades, researchers such as Bekenstein, Hawking, Jacobson, Padmanabhan, and Verlinde have revealed that gravitational dynamics themselves may be emergent from thermodynamic or informational principles. Yet despite these advances, no single theory has managed to express both the geometric and informational dimensions of reality as one continuous field. Two contemporary approaches have recently revived this ambition from opposite directions. The first, John Onimisi Obidi’s Theory of Entropicity (ToE),[(2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 9; 10)] reconstructs all of physics from the principle that entropy is not a derivative quantity but the foundational causal field of the universe. The second, Waldemar Marek Feldt’s FELDT–HIGGS Universal Bridge (F–HUB),[(1)] grounds reality in quantum information dynamics structured through the Higgs field. Both frameworks extend beyond Einsteinian geometry and the Standard Model, yet they diverge in their definitions of what is truly fundamental: ToE begins from entropy, whereas F–HUB begins from information . This section introduces the conceptual foundations of each theory and establishes the interpretive bridge through which they will be compared. The comparison highlights how ToE transforms entropy into a dynamical, variational field while F–HUB treats entropy as a derivative of informational geometry and Higgs interaction. Understanding these distinctions clarifies why ToE’s equations assume the form of nonlinear field dynamics rather than algebraic correspondences. 2 Conceptual Framework 2.1 The Philosophical Divergence Both ToE and F–HUB are post-Einsteinian theories in that they treat space, time, and mass not as primitives but as emergent manifestations of deeper organizing principles. Yet they differ profoundly in the order of emergence. F–HUB Causal Order Information → Entropy → Mass → Gravity → Spacetime ToE Causal Order Entropy → Information → Mass → Motion → Spacetime In F–HUB, the universe originates as a structured information network. Entropy appears as the measure of information dispersion, and the Higgs field mediates the crystallization of informational patterns into mass and geometry. In contrast, the Theory of Entropicity reverses this hierarchy: the entropic field precedes information itself. Entropy is not a measure of information but the process by which information—and thus reality—comes into being. This inversion of causality represents one of ToE’s defining departures from all previous frameworks. 2.2 Foundational Principles The essential philosophical premises of the two theories are summarized in Table 1. They reveal how both share thermodynamic ancestry but assign different ontological primacy to entropy and information. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review ISSN: 2581-8341 Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11-21, Impact Factor: 8.048 IJCSRR @ 2025 www.ijcsrr.org 5643 *Corresponding Author: John Onimisi Obidi Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 Available at: www.ijcsrr.org Page No. 5642-5657 Table 1: Foundational Premises of F–HUB and ToE Aspect F–HUB Theory Theory of Entropicity (ToE) First Principle The universe is an information structure organized through the Higgs field; physical phenomena arise from informational symmetry breaking. Primary Quantity Information density and its coupling to the Higgs potential. Causality Basis Information → structure → energy → geometry. The universe is an entropic continuum; all physical processes arise from gradients and fluxes in the entropy field. Entropy S(x) as a continuous scalar–tensor field with intrinsic dynamics. Entropy → information → energy → geometry. Temporal Interpretation Time is the sequential reconfiguration of informational states. Time is irreversible entropic flow (Chronos) giving direction to existence. Nature of Mass Mass emerges from informational resonance with the Higgs field. Nature of Gravity Entropic effect of information curvature mediated by the Higgs interaction. Goal of Theory To construct a universal algebraic bridge between information, mass, and spacetime geometry. Mass is frozen or constrained entropy—the localized resistance of the field to further redistribution. Entropy gradient seeking equilibrium; gravity is entropy’s curvature in motion. To derive all physical laws from the Obidi Action and Vuli-Ndlela Integral as expressions of entropy’s causal field. 2.3 Conceptual Integration At a philosophical level, both theories attempt to bridge physics and metaphysics: F–HUB through informational causation, ToE through entropic generation. The F–HUB model situates the Higgs field as the translator between quantum information and matter, suggesting that the universe’s “hardware” is informational. ToE instead interprets the same phenomena as the “software” of entropy in continuous operation. In F–HUB, the universe stores information; in ToE, the universe learns through entropy. These complementary but distinct perspectives imply that ToE encompasses F–HUB as a special case—specifically, the regime where entropy flow stabilizes into steady informational patterns. When entropy ceases to evolve dynamically, its residual configuration behaves as information geometry—the very domain F–HUB describes. Thus, ToE may be seen as a generalization of F–HUB, extending informational physics into a full field theory of entropy. 2.4 Transition to Mathematical Framework While F–HUB expresses its insights through algebraic proportionalities and phenomenological relations among constants, ToE formalizes them via a variational action principle called the Obidi Action. The next section develops the mathematical structures underlying each approach, beginning with the F–HUB master relation and proceeding to the Obidi Action[(2; 4)] and Vuli-Ndlela Integral.[(2; 3; 4; 8; 9)] This transition marks the boundary between descriptive correspondences and generative dynamics—the distinction that ultimately defines the greater unifying power of the Theory of Entropicity. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review ISSN: 2581-8341 Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11-21, Impact Factor: 8.048 IJCSRR @ 2025 www.ijcsrr.org 5644 *Corresponding Author: John Onimisi Obidi Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 Available at: www.ijcsrr.org Page No. 5642-5657 ′ 3 Mathematical Frameworks and Comparative Analysis 3.1 The F–HUB Mathematical Model The FELDT–HIGGS Universal Bridge (F–HUB) treats the universe as a structured informational network whose physical manifestations emerge through the coupling of information density to the Higgs field. Its key quantitative relation, termed the F–HUB Master Equation, links entropy S, the Higgs contribution H′, mass M , Boltzmann’s constant kB, and the speed of light c. This relation expresses the algebraic proportionality between entropy and the informational curvature induced by the Higgs interaction: H′ M 2 k B α S = c 3 (1) where α is a coupling constant representing the proportional intensity of the informational curvature of spacetime. Equation (1) encapsulates the F–HUB principle that mass is a function of informational structure and that entropy quantifies the information embodied in mass-energy configurations. The framework is primarily algebraic rather than differential: it does not yield field dynamics but provides proportional laws between thermodynamic and informational quantities. Each variable symbolizes a structural aspect of reality: • H — effective Higgs amplitude, determining how information condenses into mass, • M — inertial manifestation of stored information, • kB — thermodynamic scaling between information and energy, • c — propagation constant linking informational updates to physical causality. Thus, F–HUB translates informational organization into measurable thermodynamic properties, but it remains descriptive. The equation defines a steady-state relation without prescribing how information or entropy evolve dynamically over time. 3.2 The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) Field Formulation The Theory of Entropicity (ToE), by contrast, constructs a complete field-theoretic and variational formulation of physics grounded in entropy as a causal entity. At the foundation of ToE lies the Obidi Action, which generalizes classical and quantum actions by introducing explicit entropy-dependent terms. The path integral of the theory, known as the Vuli-Ndlela Integral, governs the probabilistic weighting of all entropic field configurations: where: • S[ϕ] is the classical action (e.g., Einstein–Hilbert or Standard Model action), • SG[ϕ] represents the gravitational entropy correction, • Sirr[ϕ] accounts for irreversible entropy flow, • ℏeff is the entropy-modified Planck constant, • S is the entropy-constrained domain restricting allowable field configurations. Equation (2) formalizes the entropic field dynamics of ToE: physical evolution corresponds to the path that extremizes the total entropic action. Entropy here is not an external measure but a dynamical variable generating spacetime geometry, motion, and energy flow. The effective field equations follow from a variation of the Obidi Action: which yields a generalized Euler–Lagrange structure incorporating both reversible and irreversible components of entropy flow. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review ISSN: 2581-8341 Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11-21, Impact Factor: 8.048 IJCSRR @ 2025 www.ijcsrr.org 5645 *Corresponding Author: John Onimisi Obidi Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 Available at: www.ijcsrr.org Page No. 5642-5657 3.3 Comparative Mathematical Structure The essential mathematical distinction between F–HUB and ToE can be summarized in Table 2. While F–HUB provides a phenomenological bridge linking constants of nature, ToE produces a dynamical field theory governed by variational extremization and entropy constraints. Table 2: Comparison of Mathematical Structures in F–HUB and ToE Feature F–HUB Theory Theory of Entropicity (ToE) Mathematical Form Algebraic master equation linking thermodynamic and informational quantities. Variational field equations derived from an entropy-dependent action principle. Core Relation S = ( H ′ M 2 k B α ) /c 3 Z ToE = f D [ ϕ ] e iS/ℏ e −S G /k B e −S irr/ℏeff Primary Variable Scalar mass–entropy proportionality. Entropy field S(x) and its derivatives ∂ µ S . Nature of Equations Static proportionalities among constants. Dynamic, nonlinear partial differential equations with irreversibility. Dimensional Basis 0-dimensional algebraic manifold (information geometry). 4-dimensional entropic manifold (spacetime field). Underlying Principle Information–Higgs coupling. Entropic extremization (second law as field equation). Analytical Technique Symbolic substitution and dimensional balance. Variational calculus and path integral quantization. 3.4 Interpretative Comparison From an analytical perspective, the F–HUB equation (1) defines an equilibrium constraint—an informational equation of state connecting the Higgs field and entropy content of matter. In contrast, ToE’s formulation (2) describes non-equilibrium dynamics: the spontaneous, time-asymmetric evolution of entropy fields seeking maximal flow. This difference in mathematical architecture corresponds to a difference in metaphysical stance. In F–HUB, reality is fundamentally informational; physics describes how information structures stabilize into recognizable phenomena. In ToE, reality is fundamentally entropic; physics describes how entropy continuously reconfigures information and energy to sustain existence. Where F–HUB presents a snapshot of cosmic structure, ToE offers its movie. 3.5 Bridge Between F–HUB and ToE Although distinct in approach, the two theories are mathematically compatible under specific limits. When ToE’s irreversible term Sirr[ϕ] approaches zero and the entropy field becomes stationary (∂µS → 0), the action reduces to a quasi-static state corresponding to F–HUB’s algebraic regime. In that limit, entropy ceases to generate new structure and behaves as stored information—precisely the condition F–HUB models. Therefore, F–HUB emerges as the informational equilibrium limit of ToE’s entropic dynamics. This hierarchical relationship is illustrated conceptually in Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual relationship between the F–HUB informational domain and the ToE entropic field continuum. The former appears as the static equilibrium subset of the latter’s dynamic field manifold. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review ISSN: 2581-8341 Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11-21, Impact Factor: 8.048 IJCSRR @ 2025 www.ijcsrr.org 5646 *Corresponding Author: John Onimisi Obidi Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 Available at: www.ijcsrr.org Page No. 5642-5657 3.6 Summary of the Comparative Framework The mathematical contrast between the two frameworks underscores their complementary natures. The F–HUB theory contributes an intuitive algebraic linkage between mass, information, and entropy, while the Theory of Entropicity generalizes this intuition into a dynamical principle capable of reproducing relativistic, quantum, and thermodynamic phenomena from a single source. F–HUB offers correspondence, ToE delivers causation. In the next section, the discussion proceeds to the physical and conceptual consequences of these mathematical formulations—specifically, how each theory interprets gravity, mass, time, and the emergence of physical law. 4 Physical Implications and Comparative Consequences 4.1 Mass and the Nature of Matter In F–HUB, mass arises from the informational resonance of quantum states with the Higgs field. When information organizes into stable configurations, the Higgs interaction endows it with rest energy, giving rise to inertial mass. Thus, mass represents the structural condensation of information. In the Theory of Entropicity (ToE), the story is inverted. Mass does not emerge from informational structure but from constrained entropy. Wherever entropy flow is inhibited or stored, a local curvature in the entropic field manifests as what we measure as mass. Matter is, therefore, not substance but a frozen configuration of entropy: M ∝ ∂S ∂x µ → 0 (4) This relation implies that mass is the local boundary condition where the spatial derivative of the entropy field approaches zero—entropy trapped rather than free. Hence: Mass = localized entropic constraint, Gravity = entropy attempting to restore flow. This description transforms mass from a passive quantity to an active participant in the universe’s entropic self-balancing. 4.2 Gravitation as Entropic Curvature In F–HUB, gravity results from the curvature of the informational field mediated by the Higgs potential, a derivative effect of how information structures space. The ToE, however, introduces a deeper interpretation: gravity is the curvature of entropy flow itself. Space curves not because of energy or mass [alone], but because entropy redistributes dynamically to maximize its flow potential. The Einstein tensor is replaced by an Entropic Curvature Tensor Λµν, representing entropy gradients within the field: Λ µν = η ∇ µ ∇ ν S − g µν □ S (5) where η is the entropic coupling constant. Equation (5) ensures that what appears as gravitational attraction in general relativity is, in ToE, the spatial redistribution of the entropy field seeking equilibrium. 4.3 The Speed of Light as the Entropic Limit A central philosophical and physical divergence arises in the interpretation of the speed of light. In standard physics and in F–HUB, c is a fundamental constant linking energy, information, and geometry. In the Theory of Entropicity, c is redefined as the maximum velocity of entropy reconfiguration—the ultimate rate at which the universe can reorganize information, energy, and structure. Hence, the constancy of the speed of light reflects the universal constraint on entropic computation: Relativity emerges naturally as an entropic phenomenon: as an object approaches this limit, the required entropy for further acceleration increases, manifesting as mass increase, time dilation, and length contraction. Thus, the entropic field forbids superluminal motion not arbitrarily but because the universe cannot update its own entropic configuration faster than c. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review ISSN: 2581-8341 Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11-21, Impact Factor: 8.048 IJCSRR @ 2025 www.ijcsrr.org 5647 *Corresponding Author: John Onimisi Obidi Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 Available at: www.ijcsrr.org Page No. 5642-5657 4.4 Time as Irreversible Entropic Flow (ToE’s Chronos) Both theories attempt to redefine the meaning of time, yet they do so in opposite directions. F–HUB defines time as the sequence of information updates in the universal network—a discrete informational clock. ToE treats time as a continuous, irreversible flow of entropy. Each moment corresponds to the system’s new entropic configuration, making time inseparable from thermodynamic evolution: dS > 0 ⇒ t flows forward. (7) dt The arrow of time thus emerges as an inherent property of entropy itself, not as an imposed asymmetry. This insight links ToE to both cosmological expansion and quantum measurement, where the collapse of the wavefunction corresponds to the irreversibility of entropy exchange between observer and system.[(2; 3; 9)] 4.5 Physical Consequence Table The principal physical implications of the two frameworks are summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Physical Implications of F–HUB and ToE Phenomenon F–HUB Interpretation ToE Interpretation Mass Emerges from informational resonance within the Higgs field. Gravity Curvature of informational geometry mediated by Higgs potential. Light Speed Constant linking energy, mass, and information transfer. Arises from frozen or constrained entropy—localized entropic resistance. Redistribution of entropy seeking maximal flow—curvature of the entropic field. Maximum speed of entropic reconfiguration—the causal limit of reality. Time Sequential update of informational states. Continuous irreversible entropy flow—Chronos as the dynamic of existence. Energy Conservation Result of information symmetry. Result of global entropy equilibrium within the entropic manifold. Causality Determined by network connectivity. Determined by finite entropic update rate (c). Relativity Effects Emergent from information–Higgs interactions. Quantum Behavior Probability as statistical representation of informational uncertainty. Natural consequence of finite entropic processing capacity of the universe. Probability as expression of finite-time entropic transitions (irreversibility). 4.6 On the Evolution of Physical Laws A profound implication of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) is that what we call “physical laws” are not immutable but adaptive states of the entropic field. The constants and equations of physics reflect the current configuration of entropy within the universe, which evolves as entropy itself evolves. Consequently, the laws of nature are not eternal but self-updating—a concept that F–HUB only implicitly hints at through informational restructuring. The evolution of physical law under ToE implies that cosmological and quantum parameters may slowly drift as the universe’s entropic manifold reconfigures over cosmic timescales. 4.7 Summary Both theories seek to unify physics by tracing mass, time, and gravitation back to deeper first principles, yet their causal hierarchies diverge. F–HUB’s universe is a crystallized lattice of information shaped by Higgs interactions; ToE’s universe is a living continuum of entropy in perpetual self-organization. Information in ToE is but a residue of entropy’s memory—its “shadow” in stability. Hence, F–HUB provides the static skeleton of reality; ToE provides its dynamic pulse. One describes the architecture of being, the other its becoming. 5648 *Corresponding Author: John Onimisi Obidi Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 Available at: www.ijcsrr.org Page No. 5642-5657 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review ISSN: 2581-8341 Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11-21, Impact Factor: 8.048 IJCSRR @ 2025 www.ijcsrr.org 5 The Entropic Cone and the Core Principles of ToE In the Theory of Entropicity (ToE), Einstein’s relativistic kinematics is not a starting axiom but a derived consequence of deeper entropic dynamics. These dynamics are encoded geometrically in what ToE calls the Entropic Cone—the entropic analogue of the relativistic light cone. The entropic cone is defined by the Entropic Speed Limit (ESL), the maximum rate at which the entropic field can update, propagate, and redistribute information and energy. This ESL appears in conventional physics as the speed of light c, but in ToE it is understood as the field’s own intrinsic “clock speed,” set by the Obidi Action (OA) and the Master Entropic Equation (MEE). [Refer to the Appendix section for further details.] The entropic cone is governed by a family of interlocking principles: - 1. the No–Rush Theorem (NRT), 2. the Cumulative Delay Principle (CDP), 3. the Entropic Accounting Principle (EAP), 4. the Entropic Resistance Principle (ERP) and its associated 5. Entropic Resistance Field (ERF), and 6. the feedback cycle known as Obidi’s Loop (OL). Together, these principles explain why nothing can outrun light, why all observers measure the same value of c, and why relativistic effects such as time dilation, mass increase, and length contraction emerge naturally. 5.1 The Entropic Cone. The entropic cone is the causal domain of the entropic field. Events inside the cone can be connected by entropic influence; events outside it are causally disconnected, since no entropic signal can reach them within the finite update rate of the field. Thus, the entropic cone generalizes the relativistic light cone: it is not defined by photons, but by the universal tempo of entropic reconfiguration. 5.2 The No–Rush Theorem (NRT). NRT asserts that no process can reorganize the entropic field faster than the ESL. Reality cannot “rush” its own update schedule: the field cannot compute or recalibrate faster than its intrinsic causal tempo. This replaces Einstein’s postulate of invariant light speed with a deeper requirement: all motion and interaction are bounded by the finite rate of entropy redistribution. 5.3 The Cumulative Delay Principle (CDP). Each entropic interaction requires a finite processing interval. When many such interactions occur, these microscopic delays accumulate. Relativistic time dilation is the macroscopic manifestation of this accumulation: the more a system draws on the entropic field to sustain motion and coherence, the more its proper time lags. CDP thus links microscopic entropic finiteness to macroscopic relativistic effects. 5.4 The Entropic Accounting Principle (EAP). Every system has a finite entropic budget, allocated among: (i) maintaining internal identity, (ii) sustaining motion, and (iii) mediating interactions. At high velocities, more of this budget is diverted to preserving global consistency with the field, leaving less for internal change. This reallocation manifests externally as increased inertial mass and internally as slowed proper time. EAP is the bookkeeping rule of ToE. 5.5 The Entropic Resistance Principle (ERP) and Entropic Resistance Field (ERF). ERP states that attempts to approach the ESL are met with increasing resistance from the entropic field. The ERF quantifies this resistance, ensuring causal consistency. In Einstein’s language, this is relativistic mass increase; in ToE, it is the entropic necessity of diverting resources to oppose any attempt to outrun the field’s update rate. 5649 *Corresponding Author: John Onimisi Obidi Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 Available at: www.ijcsrr.org Page No. 5642-5657 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review ISSN: 2581-8341 Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11-21, Impact Factor: 8.048 IJCSRR @ 2025 www.ijcsrr.org 5.6 Obidi’s Loop (OL). OL describes the feedback cycle that enforces the ESL. As velocity nears the ESL, resistance intensifies (ERP/ERF), forcing additional energy into entropic load rather than speed. This slows the system’s ability to change state, which further strengthens resistance, closing the loop. The result is an asymptotic approach to the ESL: one can approach the cone’s boundary but never cross it, unless the local entropic field itself is reconfigured. This self-reinforcing cycle is known in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) as Obidi’s Loop: the harder a system strives to advance, the more that very effort is absorbed into resistance, until progress itself becomes imperceptible, unmeasurable, and ultimately unattainable. 5.7 Einstein’s Kinematics as Entropic Geometry. When combined—NRT, CDP, EAP, ERP/ERF, and OL—Einstein’s relativistic kinematics emerges naturally. Time dilation arises from CDP; length contraction from the field’s rescaling to preserve ESL; mass increase from ERP under EAP’s budget; and invariance of c from the invariance of the entropic field’s causal tempo. Thus, relativity is not axiomatic but derivative: the light cone is a projection of the deeper entropic cone. 5.8 Generalization and Local Variability. ToE allows that in regions where the entropic field has a different internal clock speed or symmetry, the slope of the entropic cone changes. The ESL—and thus the effective “speed of light”—may differ. The principles remain valid locally, but with new constants and new kinematics. Hence, the entropic cone unifies relativity’s local invariance with the possibility of global variability: laws of physics are emergent field behaviors, not immutable decrees. 5.9 Summary on the Core Concepts of ToE. The entropic cone and its governing principles show that ToE does more than reinterpret Einstein’s postulates: it derives them. Relativity becomes the visible surface of a deeper entropic architecture, grounded in the axioms of entropy as a field, the Obidi Action, and the Master Entropic Equation. 6 Integration of Information and Geometry in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) 6.1 Historical and Conceptual Foundations Long before the emergence of the Theory of Entropicity, pioneers such as Claude Shannon and John von Neumann had already revealed a profound connection between information and entropy. Shannon’s information entropy, , and von and von Neumann’s quantum entropy, S = −kBTr(ρ log ρ), both express the uncertainty or informational content of a system as a thermodynamic measure. ToE extends these insights beyond statistics: entropy is not merely a measure of uncertainty but the very field through which information and geometry arise. In ToE, information is an emergent structure—the spatial–temporal imprint of stabilized entropy flow. Geometry, in turn, is the metric representation of the entropic field’s curvature. Thus, information theory, thermodynamics, and spacetime geometry are not independent domains but nested projections of a single underlying entity: the entropic continuum. 6.2 Mathematical Synthesis of Information and Geometry ToE integrates the mathematical machinery of information geometry—the Amari– C ˇ enco v α-connections, the Fisher–Rao metric, and the Fubini–Study metric—directly into its field equations. In standard information geometry, the Fisher–Rao metric defines the infinitesimal distance between probability distributions:[(4; 5)] 5650 *Corresponding Author: John Onimisi Obidi Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 Available at: www.ijcsrr.org Page No. 5642-5657 International Journal of Current Science Research and Review ISSN: 2581-8341 Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11-21, Impact Factor: 8.048 IJCSRR @ 2025 www.ijcsrr.org B.2 Core Principles and Theorems • Entropic Cone — The causal domain of the entropic field, analogous to the relativistic light cone, bounded by the ESL. • NRT (No–Rush Theorem) — No process can reorganize the entropic field faster than the ESL; reality cannot “rush” its own update schedule. • CDP (Cumulative Delay Principle) — Microscopic entropic delays accumulate, manifesting macroscopically as relativistic time dilation. • EAP (Entropic Accounting Principle) — Every system has a finite entropic budget, allocated among internal stability, motion, and interactions. • ERP (Entropic Resistance Principle) — Attempts to approach the ESL are met with increasing resistance from the entropic field. • ERF (Entropic Resistance Field) — The field manifestation of ERP, quantifying the resistance that enforces causal consistency. B.3 Derived Structures and Equations • EG (Entropic Geodesics) — Natural paths of evolution in the entropic manifold, generalizing geodesics in relativity. • EPE (Entropy Potential Equation) — Governs the potential landscape of entropic interactions. • ESL Variability — In regions with different entropic configurations, the ESL (and thus the effective “speed of light”) may differ, yielding new local kinematics. B.4 Conceptual Analogies • Ocean Analogy — The entropic field is the ocean; objects are fish; light is the intrinsic wave speed. Fish can swim faster than currents, but nothing can outrun the wave speed of the ocean itself. • Clock Analogy — Clocks and rulers are built from the entropic field; when motion changes, the field recalibrates them to preserve the ESL. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review ISSN: 2581-8341 Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11-21, Impact Factor: 8.048 IJCSRR @ 2025 www.ijcsrr.org 5657 *Corresponding Author: John Onimisi Obidi Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 Available at: www.ijcsrr.org Page No. 5642-5657 Cite this Article: Obidi, J.O. (2025). Comparative Analysis Between John Onimisi Obidi’s Theory of Entropicity (ToE) and Waldemar Marek Feldt’s FELDT–HIGGS Universal Bridge (F–HUB) Theory. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 8(11), pp. 5642-5657. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i11-21