models in which space or spacetime are themselves emergent. Examples include graph-based models such as quantum graphity [@Marko] and DUCTs [@Wall], group field theory [@Oriti; @Oriti2], certain matrix models [@Steinacker], Wheeler’s notion of “it from bit” [@Wheeler2], and other attempts to model the Universe as a quantum computer [@Lloyd; @Marko2]. Arguably, some versions of the AdS/CFT correspondence [@Polchinski; @Berenstein; @Murugan]—those in which the conformal field theory is considered primary and the bulk spacetime emergent—fall into this category; the CFT lives in some lower dimensional, nondynamical space, but points in that space need not have any relationship with points in our bulk spacetime, so the latter might be considered emergent. In type II models, before even asking about contact with observation, one must typically work quite hard to find observables that display the large scale existence of spacetime at all.

The distinction I am making is similar, although not quite identical, to Bain’s differentiation between emergence from a “spatiotemporal structure” and a “non-spatiotemporal reality”[@Bain]. It is not a sharp one. Causal set models [@Bombelli; @Sorkin], for instance, contain elements of a pre-existing spacetime in the form of points and their causal relations, but the continuum is emergent. If the conformal field 