Milgromian Cosmology, Wolframian Computing, and Primate Consciousness by David Brown

Thank you for your interest in my ideas. Your remark "... Those MOND-chameleon particles sound fun and I hope you are correct about them ..." from the thread on your essay is not really a good hope from my viewpoint. My basic theory is an interpretation of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I say that the 3 main predictions of my theory are: the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect, the Space Roar Profile Prediction and the "64 Particles Hypothesis". There are various threats to the empirical validity of my basic theory -- among these threats are physical evidence for supersymmetry, the existence of magnetic monopoles (in free space), and/or the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. The MOND-chameleon particles would indicate that Milgrom's MOND is an APPARENT phenomenon (somewhat like Coriolis forces or other inertial forces) -- in other words, Milgrom's acceleration law might be a result of ignoring the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. My basic theory implies that MOND is a REAL phenomenon (which occurs as one of the consequences of some gravitons escaping from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse). However, my basic theory is somewhat philosophically distasteful to me (because the theory implies that it is impossible to change the future). Consider 3 questions: Is there a maximum wavelength in the physical universe? Can energy, spacetime, and quantum information be explained in terms of Fredkin-Wolfram underlying the Planck scale? Who is the world's greatest living theoretical physicist?

Is Ed Witten really the world's greatest living theoretical physicist? -- quora.com

Who are some of the world's leading nuclear, particle and high energy physicists alive today?-- quota.com

I think that the world's greatest living theoretical physicist might be Witten or Weinberg -- it's difficult to say. My guess is that Witten's 11-dimensional model is essential for formulating Wolfram's automaton and establishing the empirical validity of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I have conjectured the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

"... soft spot for quotes ..." Many quotations are valuable guides that point out the good way to follow and/or the bad way to avoid. Consider the following quote from Crick's "What Mad Pursuit":

"Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas, often simply by living with them for so long."

"What Mad Pursuit" by Francis Crick, page 141

Consider 4 hypotheses: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (4) My "dark-matter-compensation-constant" idea is wrong. If my basic theory is wrong, then how would I guess? Given the empirical successes of MOND, consider Newton's 3 laws of motion: (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3rd law), where + means true and - means false. Is string theory the only plausible way to unify quantum field theory and general relativity theory? Let us assume that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is correct, Einstein's equivalence principle is 100% correct for dark matter, and the conventional wisdom is correct in endorsing (+ 1st law, + 2nd law, + 3rd law).

In calculating quark masses, the issue of pole mass versus running mass is important.

"Charm Production: Pole Mass or Running Mass?" by Richard D. Ball, 2016

The Higgs field enables the stability of quantum fields.

"How the Higgs Field Works (with math)", profmattstrassler.com

Dark matter particles might have their mass explained in some profoundly new way, such as by a MOND-chameleon-Higgs field. MOND-chameleon particles would, by definition, have variable effective masses depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration, and the MOND-chameleon-Higgs field would, presumably, share this feature of the hypothetical MOND-chameleon particles. The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might have some role in maintaining the structure of the multiverse. The Koide formula might have an explanation with square-root(mass) somehow interpreted as area, but with the explanation involving how dark energy interacts with the quantum vacuum. Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might have an explanation involving interchange of virtual mass-energy among alternate universes, but with conservation of gravitational energy in each alternate universe; Lestone's virtual cross sections might be hidden in the multiverse interstitium. The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might be somehow related to the multiverse interstitium and might serve as some kind of conduit for the interchange of virtual mass-energy among alternate universes.

Consider some speculators on pole masses, running masses, the string landscape, and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections.

Depending on the renormalization scheme, running masses differ from pole masses. I say that my 3 most important ideas are:

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

"The failures of the standard model of cosmology require a new paradigm" by Kroupa, Pawlowski & Milgrom, 2013

(2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

Koide formula, Wikipedia

(3) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

"Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121" by J. P. Lestone, 2016

Is there a way of explaining the 3 preceding ideas in terms of the string landscape?

Assume that Einstein's field equations are correct in terms of quantum averaging over the string landscape. Under the preceding assumption, Milgrom's MOND might be an apparent effect. Assume that the apparent effect of MOND is entirely due to a quantum scalar field with an associated scalar boson with a variable effective mass depending on the nearby gravitational acceleration. Call this field the MOND-chameleon field. In other words, the MOND-concept that there is a problem with Newton's 2nd law of motion results from the (possibly false) assumption that MOND-chameleon particles do not exist. In Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 MOND-chameleon-tracking-function. If the MOND-chameleon-tracking-function is roughly constant for the range of gravitational accelerations of MOND-validity, then MOND is recovered. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has a renormalization scheme. Quantum gravitational theory might have a renormalization scheme in which some particles have a variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration and/or the nearby energy density. (The reason might be that quantum gravitational effects are physically manifested when gravitational acceleration is immensely high and/or energy density is immensely high.) Assume that MOND-chameleon particles and MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chamelon particles exist. By definition, MOND-Khoury-Weltman particles have variable effective mass depending upon both the nearby gravitational acceleration and the nearby energy density. If Guth inflation can occur in one universe with a specific value CC1 for the cosmological constant and give rise to another universe with a different specific value CC2 for the cosmological constant, then MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles might be needed to explain in terms of the string landscape how the variation from CC1 to CC2 took place. How might square-root(mass) be assigned a physical meaning? At the Planck scale there could be tiny shock waves that trade virtual energy among alternate universes in the string landscape. The mass-energy of such a shock wave could be associated with a volume of spacetime depending upon the renormalization scheme for quantum gravity. Thus, square-root(mass) might be associated with area. How might Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections be explained in terms of the string landscape? The alternate universes of the string landscape might be networked together with an interstitium among the alternate universes. The tiny shock waves associated with square-root(mass) might create a higher-dimensional ultra-hot interstitium. Lestone's virtual cross sections might be associated with tiny higher-dimensional bubbles within the interstitium of the string landscape. MOND-chameleon bosons and MOND-Khoury-Weltman bosons might be empirical evidence for the hypothesis that tiny shock waves trade virtual energy among alternate universes in the string landscape and thereby create a higher-dimensional ultra-hot interstitium within the string landscape. In other words, the effects of the tiny shock waves might be physically manifested in the MOND-chameleon field and the MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon field but not directly in the Higgs field or the other quantum fields associated with ordinary matter.

According to a 2016 publication by Verlinde, on page 13 "We like to emphasize that we have not derived the theory of modified Newtonian dynamics as proposed by Milgrom." On page 43, "In order to explain the observed phenomena we did not postulate the existence of a dark matter particle, nor did we modify the gravitational laws in an adhoc way. Instead we have tried to understand their origin and their mutual relation by taking seriously the theoretical indications coming from string theory and black hole physics that spacetime and gravity are emergent." On page 2 there is a discussion of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy S = area-of-the-event-horizon / ( 4 * G * hbar) and the Hawking temperature T = hbar * surface-acceleration / (2 * pi).

"Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe" by Erik P. Verlinde, 2016

I want to suggest a way in which Verlinde's theory of emergent gravity might be replaced by a theory of MOND-chameleon particles arising from the string landscape. Assume that there is an hbar-renormalization-alpha-prime-integration scheme for the string landscape. Instead of assuming that gravity is emergent, assume that a quantum gravitational renormalization scheme is emergent. After integrating over the string landscape to eliminate alpha-prime, there might be uncertain-S and uncertain-T, where S is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and T is the Hawking temperature; the uncertainty depends upon hbar and the quantum gravitational renormalization scheme which results from the integration of the hbar-renormalization-alpha-prime-integration scheme. This would yield an uncertain-emergent-gravity with an associated quantum gravitational renormalization scheme. Each uncertain-emergent-gravity might be (non-relativistically) slightly different from MOND, but after calculating the quantum-gravitational-running-masses associated with the MOND-chameleon quantum field, there might be statistically significant differences between the general relativistic pole masses and the quantum-gravitational-running-masses for the MOND-chameleon particles, yielding excellent (non-relativistic) agreement with MOND. Thus after the quantum-gravitational approximation over the string landscape, the -1/2 in Einstein's field equations might be replaced by -1/2 MOND-chameleon-tracking-function, where this tracking-function is merely a result of the (possibly false) assumption that MOND-chameleon particles do not exist. Thus, according to this speculation, there might be a way to introduce a new layer of uncertainty into Verlinde's theory of emergence and thereby introduce one (or more?) MOND-chameleon quantum fields that might explain Milgrom's MOND.

Consider 2 questions: Is there a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics? Is there a unified theory of mathematics, theoretical physics, and theoretical computer science?

According to Sheldon Glashow, "String theory has had an impact on modern mathematics. ... But in and of itself, it has failed in its primary goal, which is to incorporate what we already know into a consistent theory that explains gravity as well."

NOVA | Elegant Universe | Sheldon Glashow | PBS

I speculate as follows: Bell's theorem is philosophically wrong, but empirically irrefutable. The string landscape is philosophically wrong, but empirically irrefutable. What do I mean by the 2 preceding statements? My guess is that there are 2 basic possibilities for the foundations of physics: string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis or string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. If the finite nature hypothesis is wrong, then my guess is that there is a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics, but there is no unified theory of theoretical physics and theoretical computer science. My guess is that constructive string theory can be embedded into nonconstructive string theory which can be embedded into differential geometry algebraic geometry. Mochizuki's IUT might have an analogy in a theory of alternate universes of quantum logics based upon different string vacua. My guess is that Witten's 11-dimensional model is the correct description of the local geometry of the string landscape. However, the string landscape should have a global geometry with a theory of global virtual thermodynamics. The problem is to generalize from a 1st order theory of quantum entanglement in quantum field theory to a 2nd order theory of quantum entanglement in the string landscape. However, there is no empirical data array that describes alternate universes and their structure within the string landscape. If string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid then it might be mandatory that there should be theory of the string landscape that explains all known empirical data -- but the explanation might be mathematically awkward and somewhat implausible.

If the string landscape is a physical reality, then I would bet in favor of some version of chameleon particles as an explanation for the empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND. By definition, Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles are hypothetical particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby energy density. What might be an argument in favor of the existence of Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles? Suppose that a universe with value CC1 for its particular cosmological constant undergoes a Guth-type inflation event. The inflation event might create another universe with a different value CC2 for its newborn cosmological constant. Then there might be a necessity for a Khoury-Weltman-chameleon mechanism that mediates the change from CC1 to CC2.

By definition, MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles are hypothetical particles that have variable effective mass depending upon both nearby gravitational acceleration and nearby energy density. Suppose that the equivalence principle is 100% correct. There might be a quantum-gravitational theory that, after applying mathematical procedures based upon the equivalence principle, might yield 3 different types of Feynman diagrams: diagrams for ordinary matter, diagrams for dark matter, and diagrams for dark energy. There might be Feynman diagrams specifically for MOND-chameleon particles and Feynman diagrams specifically for MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles.

If the string landscape is a physical reality, then I would bet in favor of some version of inflationary cosmology. Google "alan guth inflationary cosmology youtube" to see more information on this topic.

Let us assume that my basic theory (i.e. string theory with the finite nature hypothesis) is empirically invalid. In that case I would bet on MOND-chameleon particles, Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles, and MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles within the context of the string landscape.

Euclidean geometry generalizes to Riemannian geometry, which provides the mathematical basis for general relativity theory. Presumably, at least in mathematical terms, general relativity theory can be generalized to some version(s) of the string landscape. On the other hand, Euclidean geometry generalizes to algebraic geometry, which in turn generalizes to Grothendieck's more abstract approach to algebraic geometry.

From Wikipedia, "Grothendieck's relative point of view is a heuristic applied in certain abstract mathematical situations, with a rough meaning of taking for consideration families of 'objects' explicitly depending on parameters, as the basic field of study, rather than a single such object. It is named after Alexander Grothendieck, who made extensive use of it in treating foundational aspects of algebraic geometry. Outside that field, it has been influential particularly on category theory and categorical logic. ... Assuming that we don't have a commitment to one 'set theory' (all toposes are in some sense equally set theories for some intuitionistic logic) it is possible to state everything relative to some given set theory that acts as a base topos."

Grothendieck's relative point of view, Wikipedia

My guess is that Grothendieck's relative point of view generalizes to higher conceptual approaches as exemplified by Mochizuki's IUT. In other words, it seems to me that general relativity is somewhat like Grothendieck's relative point of view, and the string landscape is somewhat like Mochizuki's IUT.

I suggest that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle might be generalized to:

standard-deviation-of-position * standard-deviation-of-momentum тЙе (hbar/2) * (string-landscape-factor), where string-landscape-factor = function-F(higher-fractional-dimension-from-M-theory-depending-upon-MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon-particles)/4), where the hypothetical higher-fractional-dimension varies between 4 and 10 and function-F is a real-valued increasing function on the closed interval [1, 2.5] with function-F(1) = 1.

Can Milgrom's MOND be modeled by some theory of the string landscape in which gravitinos are always MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon-particles and mediate Guth's eternal cosmological inflation?

"How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions?" Physics deals with time, space, energy, measurement, information, and symmetry. In algebraic geometry, can time and energy be introduced in various ways? What is mathematics? What is the role of mathematics in understanding reality? Is mathematics that part of conscious thought that is precise, logically consistent, and conceptually important? Is there a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics? There might be 3 basic approaches to the foundations of mathematics: (1) abstract logic (e.g. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and its generalizations); (2) unification of all the branches of mathematics within a unified theory of algebraic geometry, differential geometry. and theoretical physics; (3) understanding mathematics in terms of molecular psychology (i.e. psychology formulated in terms of molecular biology). In terms of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, how might big bangs occur? Google "guth eternal inflation". According to Guth ("Eternal inflation and its implications", 2007), "Although the infinity of pocket universes produced by eternal inflation are unobservable, it is argued that eternal inflation has real consequences in terms of the way that predictions are extracted from theoretical models. The ambiguities in defining probabilities in eternally inflating spacetimes are reviewed, with emphasis on the youngness paradox that results from a synchronous gauge regularization technique. Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions, so some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region." Is the Koide formula essential for understanding the foundations of physics? Does square-root(mass) have some interpretation as area? In each 4-volume of spacetime, there might be a probability distribution of big bangs spontaneously occurring -- this might link the 4-volume of spacetime with mass-energy.

How might objects, morphisms, and uncertainty principles involving morphisms be combined into a unified theory? Is there a Mochizuki landscape for every nonlinear partial differential equation with an uncertainty principle?

Is Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" one of the greatest books ever written? Consider 3 possibilities: (1) Wolfram's cosmological automaton is philosophically correct and empirically useful. (2) Wolfram's cosmological automaton is philosophically correct and empirically useless. (3) Wolfram's cosmological automaton is philosophically incorrect and empirically useless. Which of the 3 preceding alternatives would the majority of string theorists choose? My guess is that the string theorists are wrong about the finite nature hypothesis but correct in assuming that they have found the mathematical way to geometrize quantum probability amplitudes so as to unify quantum field theory and general relativity theory. Is the preceding guess wrong? Google "yang-mills and mass gap". The Millennial Problem "Yang-Mills and Mass Gap" might turn to have a solution or to have no solutions. According to Jaffe & Witten (in the official description of the problem), ".. one does not yet have a mathematically complete example of a quantum gauge theory in four-dimensional space-time, nor even a precise definition of quantum gauge theory in four dimensions." I conjecture that if string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is empirically valid, then the Yang-Mills and Mass Gap Problem has a mathematically satisfactory solution with a mathematically complete example. I also conjecture that if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid, then the Yang-Mills and Mass Gap Problem has an approximate solution but not a satisfactory mathematical solution in a precise axiomatic framework with a mathematically complete example.

Have string theorists underestimated Milgrom? Is MOND the basis for a conceptual revolution in the foundations of physics? I say that the world's 3 greatest living scientists are James D. Watson, Sydney Brenner, and Professor Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute. Is string theory on the right track?

According to Wikipedia, "The string theory landscape refers to the huge number of possible false vacua in string theory. ... The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles."

String theory landscape, Wikipedia

According to Witten, "Plenty of leading physicists -- prominent examples being Steve Weinberg and Martin Rees -- have taken the acceleration of the cosmic expansion seriously as a hint that a landscape interpretation of the universe may be correct."

blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physics-titan-still-thinks-string-theory-is-on-the-right-track/ 22 September 2014 interview of Edward Witten by John Horgan

It seems to me that MOND has an explanation as either (1) an apparent effect somehow resulting from unknown effects of the string landscape or (2) a real effect indicating that Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is significantly wrong. The empirical successes of MOND suggest a re-evaluation of Newton's 3 laws of motion. Consider (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3rd law), where + means true and - means false. The string theorists are in favor of (+ 1st law, + 2nd law, + 3rd law). Is it possible that gravitinos are MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles that adequately explain MOND? If the concepts of energy and spacetime break down near the Planck scale, then the fundamental geometric tensor and the energy tensor might need to be replaced by higher mathematical abstractions involving the string landscape. Let ZFC represent Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice. According to the results of Gödel, in first order logic there are infinitely propositions that are true but unprovable in ZFC (provided that ZF is consistent). In the string theory landscape are there infinitely many interesting empirical propositions that are true but inherently untestable? Suppose that there are three axioms, Axiom1, Axiom2, and Axiom3, that are independent of each other and relevant to the string theory landscape. Then ZFC with different combinations of choices from {± Axiom1, ± Axiom2, ± Axiom3} might yield alternate approaches to the foundations of physics. There might be 3 parameters, Parameter1, Parameter2, and Parameter3, that vary over different physical quantities and yield instantiations model-ZFC(Parameter1,Parameter2,Parameter3) within some landscape-like geometric structure. Instead of taking ultraproducts over a fixed model of ZFC, there might a Mochizuki theory of Mochizuki-ultraproducts generating different models of the string landscape with the generating process involving geometric variation over some Mochizuki-structure with varying models of ZFC. There might be infinitely many ways of introducing time and energy into algebraic geometry that are compatible with the empirical facts discovered by physicists. Various ways of introducing time and energy into algebraic geometry might be part of a unified theory of algebraic geometry, differential geometry, and string theory. Could the string landscape evolve in different ways according to esoteric mathematical axioms involving the foundations of set theory? Does a continuum of physical possibilities necessarily involve questions in the foundations of set theory?

What is randomness? Why does randomness exist? Are success and failure always the results of a mixture of causality and randomness? Do people always run the risk of being destroyed by their own failures or being destroyed by their own successes? Why is success a danger? A method, strategy, or lifestyle that leads to success might create overconfidence, complacency, or unanticipated dangers. Some dangers are determined but some dangers are random. Do those who adopt a consumer lifestyle run the risk of being destroyed by their own luxuries? Do those who adopt a technological lifestyle run the risk of being destroyed by their own gizmos? Do those who adopt a successful theory run the risk of being deceived by their own assumptions within the successful theory? The string theorists believe that Einstein's field equations are the correct mathematical formulation of the equivalence principle -- here I agree. The string theories believe that dark matter obeys the equivalence principle -- but I conjecture that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Fredkin has conjectured that there are no local sources of randomness. If quantum information is the fundamental basis of physics, then randomness might be an irreducible mystery. If quantum information can be reduced to Fredkin-Wolfram information, then randomness might be the irreducible ignorance generated by Wolfram's cosmological automation. If Fredkin and Wolfram are basically wrong, then Witten's 11-dimensional model might be a description of the local geometry of the string landscape. If Fredkin and Wolfram are basically correct, then Witten's 11-dimensional model might be the key to understanding why 11^2 divides the order of the monster group and how the monster group and the 6 pariah groups explain string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.

"Is quantum mechanics the ultimate description of nature? ... Is space-time doomed?" -- David Gross

"The Future of Physics", David Gross, CERN, 26 January 2005

"Sheldon Glashow ... He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1959, and went on to win the Nobel Prize for his work on unification of the fundamental forces of nature. He is a skeptic of string theory due to its lack of experimental support, going so far as to resign from the faculty at Harvard University in 2000 due to the physics department's focus on string theory research."

String Theory: A Controversy in Ten Dimensions, mit.edu

"Ed is unique -- the kind of person who comes along once a century." -- John Schwarz, concerning Edward Witten

Is string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable? Does string theory with the finite nature hypothesis lead to success in explaining dark matter? Is infinity beyond measurement and therefore not really part of empirical science? Is measurement a natural process that separates the boundary of the multiverse from the interior of the multiverse?

How can string theory explain dark matter? If the Heisenberg uncertainty principle needs to be replaced by a new uncertainty principle involving both hbar and alpha-prime, then I make 2 guesses: the 1st guess is that MOND-chameleon particles exist; the 2nd guess is that there is a quantum theory of gravity in which MOND-chameleon articles have pole masses in general relativity theory and running masses in quantum gravitational theory -- the running masses would depend on the nearby gravitational acceleration for the MOND-chameleon particles. However, I conjecture that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle fails only when the concept of measurement fails. Consider 3 conjectures: (1) Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" is one of the greatest books ever written. (2) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups. (3) The monster group and the 6 pariah groups describe how quark tracking develops from Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale. What might be the physical meaning of the monster group? The order of the monster group is:

2^46 * 3^20 * 5^9 * 7^6 * 11^2 * 13^3 * 17 * 19 * 23 * 29 * 31 * 41 * 47 * 59 * 71

Monster group, wikipedia.org

Does 11^2 represent a storage area for information associated with Witten's 11-dimensional model? Does 7^6 represent 6 basic quarks each with 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 1 dimension of quantum spin? Do the prime numbers 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 41, 47, 59, and 71 represent 9 spatial dimensions in the superstring model with 9 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time? If a prime p divides the order of the monster group, then does nature contain a profound symmetry involving p and Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale? Does Wolfram's cosmological automaton use the monster group and the 6 pariah groups to distribute Fredkin-Wolfram information yielding an approximation to quantum information? Does string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis provide a mathematically awkward explanation of MOND and the space roar?

"... What insights are to be gained from category-theoretic, informational, geometric and operational approaches to formulating quantum theory? ... How do different concepts of probability contribute to interpreting quantum theory?"

"The Oxford Questions on the foundations of physics" (p. 3) by G. A. D. Briggs, J. N. Butterfield, A. Zeilinger, 2013, arxiv.org

Does nature require probability theory with the infinite nature hypothesis? Is there a unique mathematical method for unifying mathematics, theoretical physics, and theoretical computer science? Are Milgrom's MOND, the Koide formula, and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections essential for understanding the foundations of physics?

QUOTED FROM THE NY TIMES (published Jan. 1988):

Isidor I. Rabi, the Nobel laureate in physics who died Jan. 11, was once asked, ''Why did you become a scientist, rather than a doctor or lawyer or businessman, like the other immigrant kids in your neighborhood?'' ...

The question was posed to Dr. Rabi by his friend and mine, Arthur Sackler, himself a multitalented genius, who, sadly, also passed away recently. Dr. Rabi's answer, as reported by Dr. Sackler, was profound: ''My mother made me a scientist without ever intending it. Every other Jewish mother in Brooklyn would ask her child after school: 'So? Did you learn anything today?' But not my mother. She always asked me a different question. 'Izzy,' she would say, 'did you ask a good question today?' That difference - asking good questions -made me become a scientist!'' ...

'Izzy, Did You Ask a Good Question Today?', Letter to the Editor by Donald Sheff, NY Times, published 19 January 1988

Fredkin has conjectured that infinities, infinitesimals, perfectly continuous variables, and local sources of randomness do not occur in nature -- is Fredkin correct and how might his ideas be tested? Are there 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups? Does time exist because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group? Does space exist because 3^20 divides the order of the monster group? Is Milgrom's MOND 100% compatible with string theory and supersymmetry?

I conjecture that there might be a way of making MOND 100% compatible with general relativity theory as follows: Assume that there exist ± alternate-universe-charges (AUCs). Assume that gravitons have + AUCs and gravitinos have - AUCs in our universe, and there exist gravitons with - AUCs and gravitinos with + AUCs in alternate universes. My guess is that there might be a way of using AUCs to create a string theoretical model in which gravitinos are MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration.