It is there dear Dr Rinkus that your sets become relevant in ranking all this and in trying with the spherical topological geometrical algebras and the 3 primoridal series and in correlating the informations to explain many relevant unknowns. Your physical states become relevant with the good partitions and numbers for the 3 spacetimes with a bridge beyond this GR. The probablibilities densities functions and the simultaneities can be correlated with the predictions in time in sorting, superimposing, synchronising correctly the informations in time.

It is like a ranking of events, states and in considering the evolution and the most important in going beyond this general relativity wich is unfortunally always taken like the only one piece of puzzle for the spacetime.

This idea that I explain implies qutrits instead of qubits and the main informations primordial are in this space vacuum of the dark energy. But the actual qubits and reasonings of waves that we have invented that also be considred for the sortings and synchros of these informations, that implies deepe philosophical questions about the body mind problem and the time lifes. That is why the densities and the volumes of these spheres become relevant at my humble opinion.

You can so correlate with your ideas and the numbers in considering the entities and the universe. It is there that your spatial emergent dimensions become important in considering the 3 spacetimes.

I liked your idea about the quanta of space, and I believe that you can correlate also with the superfluidity that I explained due to specific series of spherical volumes. I have always thought that this palnck scale was not a reality, but maybe we can consider these series of spheres and the paradox is that the central sphere is the biggest volume. In all the cases that can converge for the rankings of particles of our standard model and a better understanding of the universal origin of the universe. Your quanta of space and the 3D are relevant and the partitionings of fermions and bosons, in adding the two other systems, the cold dark matter and the DE , like a bridge between the qubits and qutrits and in considering the Volumes. The subsets that you utilise so can be correlated for the subgroups of these spherical topological geometrical algebras of series of 3D spheres.

I liked a lot how you extrapolate the informations with the vortex and brains, and the ideas of Penrose and Hameroff added with the microtubules more my humble ideas and your sets can permit to understand this consciousness and even the quantum computing with the qutrits. I don t know if we can create a conscious AI , because maybe it is towards these central spheres the main codes, but maybe I don t know, maybe also it is not our aim us the human to create these kind of machines but maybe. Yous 3D corpuscules are interesting also and still can be correlated with the 3D spheres.

An other point can be the informations and the competition , cooperation correlated with the volumes and densities for the importance of infomations and so implying the sortings, synchros, superimposings in function of localities butr also universally.

I see also a link with the manyworlds and your works, in tellinbg us about the multiverse, Ma tegmark has beautiful extrapolations in maths about this. And we can consider the multiverse inside an unique universe with the different interpretations of the QM, copenaghe, born rule, relational QM,manyworlds, Qbism.

Best Regards and congrats still for your general work.

Steve, I want to say hello and best regards to you.

I can't afford the time to address any more than the topic of this thread, the content of Rod Rinkus's two papers.

Hope you understand.

Best,

Tom

Tom,the people does not knowm but we were the first to write on fqxi many years ago when FQXi has been created, I shared my theory wich was too much simplictic at this moment, it is due to persons like you and Lawrence and FQXi that I have learnt and improve a lot my model. I remember all the discussions that you and Lawrence B crowel has developped, I have learnt a lot this GR due to both of you. That is why I am happy that you are there because you see the generality and your are skillings, even if we see differently the philosophical universe and its origin. I have thought about your non linear time and the fact that time =informations, it is not easy to really know all the truths about this due to our limitations. FQXi is a wonderful platform , thanks to Max tegmark and Anthony Aguire and the MIT to have created this platform.

Tom,

Ok, good to clarify our defs of superposition. And thanks for pointer to Lev Goldfarb's work. I did not know about it, but I am now reading his papers. I was quite excited to see his general underlying claim that the continuous / vector-based math (and concept of measurement) originating in ancient times and continuing to present needs to be replaced by something completely new. So, he has been building ETS, which I'm now learning about. But ETS is not fundamentally about sets. And he says on p. 3 of his 2010 FXQI essay, "Nature is fundamentally discrete...", that he doesn't think the assumption of indivisible units of space or time, i.e., Planck scale units, are to be taken seriously. However, as he immediately says, that's if you make that assumption in the context of the continuous/vector-based math. Perhaps, part of why I assume space/ time is discrete is because I was never thinking in terms of the continuous/vector-based math formalism to begin with. I have reached out to Lev and am very interested in discussing the relations of our theories.

I'm working on part 2 of my essay and it will definitely benefit from our discussions and hopefully continue to be. On reading Lev's ideas about the continuous nature of mainstream math's formalism, I think I can answer how the move to sets, away from vectors, addresses a fundamental at the heart of his essay. I'll be making up a graphical example of it, but the basic idea is this. If:

1. states are represented by sets, say of cardinality Q, over a coding field (universe) of discrete binary elements, and

2. if we assume those coding field units have a complete binary matrix to an observer, which e.g., could just be another coding field,

then:

Any unit in the observer field can receive an *instantaneous* sum in the range [0,Q]. So the unit can "feel" a range of graded, but discrete, values, even though the individual "wires" that carry signals are binary. Or, stated differently, the source coding field can send any discrete signal of magnitude X in the range [0,Q], by turning on some set of X units. However, if we now imagine that the state of the observer is not just the value received by *one* unit, but a function of the values simultaneously received by Q units (i.e., we're assuming the observer coding field also represents its states as sets of cardinality, Q), then, the "felt" effect of the set (as a whole) that becomes active in the observer field (which again we've assumed is a discrete level in [0,Q-1]), can be implicitly represented by *which* set of Q units in the observer coding field becomes active.

I'll address your other comment about normalization later.

Thanks

Rod

Dr Rinkus, like I am very curious lol I d like to know your general philsophy. So here are my questions .

What is for your the philosophical origin of the universe , do you consider a kind of creator and coder transforming the energy ? or do you consider a mathematical accident from a kind of infinite heat for example or others ?

2 what is for you the main essence of this universe, do you consider only this general relativity and the photonic spacetime and so the fields, is it so your idea with fields at this planck scale ?

3 What is for you a particle, do you consider points, sets with numbers with this planck scale and from what and why ? or strings or others and extradiemnsions and why ?

4 What are your ideas about the dark energy and dark matter, do you consider for example a modification of the newtoniam mechanics for this matter non baryonic ? and for the DE what is it for you this anti gravitational push ?

5 About the consciousness, what is its main philosophical origin, it is a little bit correlated with the question above, why we think, why we observe, why we exist and from what , is it due to particles or sets encoded and in complexification having creatyed the brains for example ?

Regards

    Dr Rinkus, I beleive that you could insider in your sets the boolean algebras also to differenciate the elements and to rank the sortings, synchros, superimposings,an other tool also could be the E8 exceptional group of Lie. And if we have a conjecture between the fields and particles, and the spheres and strings more the 3D and extradiemnsions, all this become relevant with the poincare conjecture and the synplectomorphisms preserving the volumes and permitting the deformations of 3D spheres instead of a ricci flow from the fields. If you correlate all this with your sets and the Spheres and the 3 ethers that I explained, it is revolutionary.

      Hi Steve, Thanks for all the questions.

      1. I haven't spent much time thinking about how universe started. All I know is somehow, I'm here, and don't know how I got here :)

      2. I'm no expert on relativity. As for essence, I guess my working assumption is consistent with the essay, i.e., that there is ONE underlying "field", the planckons, partitioned into the corpuscles (tiles), each of which is partitioned into fermionic and bosonic divisions. Again, I developed this view by analogy from my info processing theory, Sparsey, where the fermionic partition is the analog of the coding field and the bosonic partition is the analog of the weight matrix [actually of multiple weight matrices (as described in essay)].

      3. A fundamental particle, e.g., electron, in a particular configuration (i.e. quantum state) would be an (extremely sparse) set of active fermionic planckons in a corpuscle. That same electron, in a next configuration (e.g., at T+1), would just be a different (though possibly highly intersecting) extremely sparse set of active fermionic planckons in that corpuscle. At some T, that same electron may have "crossed into" and adjacent corpuscle. But in that adjacent corpuscle, it is, again, just an extremely sparse set of active fermionic planckons, but now is that adjacent corpuscle. So the electron is not a thing that is actually moving. It's just a sequence of sets of active fermionic planckons that have a particular relation to each other. Likewise, a photon that exists in a corpuscle at T is just an extremely sparse set of active bosonic planckons in that corpuscle, and similarly, the photon in its next config at T+1 is just another extremely sparse set of bosonic planckons. So the bosons also do not move. Nothing actually moves in the classical sense. It's just a blinking on and off of binary units (the planckons) as these active (extremely sparse) subsets turn on and off. I don't know enough about strings right now to comment intelligently on the relation of my view to strings. But regarding dimension, my view, as stated in essay, is that the dimensions we perceive are emergent, specifically, this or that observed scalar-valued dimension, e.g., the x-position of a particle in a corpuscle, is just a pattern of intersections over a set of codes (recall, a code is an extremely sparse set of active fermionic planckons). I've always liked the idea of the tiny curled up dimensions in string theory, but I don't have a comment on them right now.

      4. I have not thought at all about DE or DM.

      5. I don't think about consciousness much. Probably I would say it is epiphenomenal. For now, I just want to concentrate of language of physical stuff and information codes. Maybe I'll be ready to talk about consciousness when I'm 70 :)

      Hi Steve, I really am not familiar enough with some of the terms you mention, e.g., E8, Ricci, deformation of spheres, to intelligently comment. Maybe if you keep you posts more pointed, it would help. Also, Steve, no offense, but ya gotta spell check :) -Rod

      Hi , Don t worry , I know that I must verify before posting lol I write too quickly without rereading . I understand also that thesetools in physics or maths are not known by all thinkers but I can affirm you that if you study the E8 exceptional group of Lie, and that you consider a deeper general philosophy about the transformations matter energy , so it can improve your model. Because you consider the planck scale and it is an assumption and so the codes of this reality and its topologies, geometries, matters, fields must have a philosophy general. The sets in resume must come from something, the general relativity or others like the DM and DE added, but they must be considered. If you consider for example these sets and partitions of numbers, so that can be correlated with the fields for example of our standard model and the fields of the GR, and it is there that the lie groups are important, they are the basis of the standard model actually. So the corpuscules like you tell and the planckons must be defined philosophically, ontologically, mathematically and physically. What are really these planckons ? points connected with the one field ? what is the origin of this one field ? and how emerge the geometries and topologies more the properties of matters ? I like your general idea and like all relevant idea, that can be improved in adding the rational relevant works and interpretations, Regards

      Thanks for explaining Dr Rinkus, Like I told you, I like your general idea. I have my onw assumptions also about the particles, the fermions, bosons and why they have their properties. Like I said I work my theory of spherisation, in a simplistic resume it is an evolution optimisation of the universal sphere or future sphere with 3D quantum and cosmological spheres. I considered in the past only the general relativity and photons and I considered that these photons were series finite of 3D spheres and like they are in a superfluidity so I considered the oscillations vibrations of these spheres like a 1D cosmic field connected with spheres at this planck scale but I found enormpous problems philosophically speaking, so I have considered 3 ethers in superimposing the dark matter and the dark energy and when they merge they create the topologies, geometries. And so the fermions and bosons emerge due to codes in the space vacuum of the DE and the fermions emerge and the bosons also, the bosons for me are just photons encoded in the space vacuum and the densities of sphres and the volumes with the number of photons encoded permit to have different forces of the standard model. But the origin is not from a one field so but from codes in the space vacuum , spheres and the photons and the cold dark matter them are just a fuel for the photons permitting the bosonic fields and electromagnetism, permitting also the fact to observe due to light, permitting the thermodynamics and also the GR and SR. The cold dak matter permits the antiparticles and the quantum gravitation and also the mass with the higgs mechanism correlated like an activation. These 3 ethers so are 3 spacetimes and actually we just observe one, the GR. So like you can see my reasoning is totally different than the strings, I am not sure that this planck scale exists, that the strings and fields are the origin and that we have only this GR. I have remarked enormous problems with the fields like origin but it is an other story.

      Steve, I agree that GR, relativity, DE and DM must be considered. I'm just not there yet.

      I take my planckon "field" as given a priori. I have no explanation for its origin. Also, my base (unexplained so far) assumptions are:

      1. The size of the subsets that become active in a corpuscle's fermionic partition, Q. In my info theory, Q is parameter. In principle it can vary from one coding field to another. In physical theory, that would mean varying from one corpuscle to another. In fact, the functionality of the model doesn't change qualitatively if you allow Q to vary, at least slightly, through time. But from an info theoretic standpoint, fixed Q is best...and also easiest to analyze mathematically.

      2. K, the number of units per CM. Also could vary slightly, from one CM to another, but fixed K is probably optimal and easiest to analyze.

      3. complete (all-to-all) connectivity between any two coding fields that are connected. In physical theory, that means between the fermionic partitions of any two corpuscles that are connected.

      4. the planckons are binary-valued. Either one is active ("present") at T or inactive ("not present"). This is true for both fermionic and bosonic planckons.

      5. so when a code, consisting of Q active planckons (chosen from a fermionic partition consisting of QxK planckons) is active in a corpuscle at T, those Q active planckons send binary signals, to all planckons in each fermionic partition that is connected to the source corpuscle. All of those signals propagate in one discrete time step. And that is true for all signals leaving all corpuscles that comprise the universe. That is, the whole universe updates in lock step. I think the speed of light reflects the number of "hops" made from one corpuscle to the next, as an effect propagates across the single underlying field (which is again, partitioned into corpuscles). Also, again, note that the spatial (topological) "packing" of the fermionic planckons is NOT used in the equations that update the codes. Thus, I make no underlying assumption about the physical packing of the planckons (even though my figures depict the field as having a 3D structure). Formally, the set of fermionic planckons in a corpuscle is just that, a set, i.e., an unordered collection.

      I have not yet done any thinking about how my discrete planckon field and discrete time will address Lorentz invariance, local time, etc. But again, note that if the estimate of corpuscle size in the essay is ballpark correct, then the "antialiasing" that my model predicts, would not yet have been probed experimentally.

      This physical theory is borrowed over from an information-processing theory.

      What name does it have?

      Ulla Mattfolk

      Happy to see you on FQXi Ulla, Like I told you the works of Dr Rinkus are innovative and relevant. I d be curious to have your critics ,regards

      Hello, I believe also that these DE and DM are important, they permit to retrun at this old school if I can say about the motions of particles. The particles wich are at my humble opinion the real primordial essence, the fields being emergent. I don t beleibe that the photons and GR alone explain the DE and DM, we don t need to modify the newtonian mechanics it seems to me.

      And the dark energy correctly understood permit to solve the constant cosmological problem. Furthermore if the space vacuum of this DE possesses the main codes , that solves other problems too.

      Your assumptions are very good , they make me think about the Mtheory and strings and the correlations with the 1D comsic field and the 1D field at this planck scales permitting with the geometrical algebras to explain the geometries and topologies and the standard model with the fermions and bosons. I believe that it exists a conjecture between all this, the strings, branes, fields, Mtheory, extradiemnsions and the pure 3D spheres like foundamental objects. The fields in my reasoning so are emergent . That becomes so interesting to consider your fermionic and bosonic partitions connected. All seems a question of codes indeed and where they are really these foundamental primordial codes if I can say, it is from outside or inside and from what , is it fields or is it particles coded and if yes where.

      For the links with the informations and binary systems, it is important also indeed and how these informations are under their distributions to imply the changes, variables of the equations in physics. Like tell Lorraine ford the boolean algebras permit these changes for the equations in physics. But the real question is still the same about the primordial essence of these informations and what are the main causes ,and where.

      Regards

      Hi Tom, Steve,

      I've just come across what is for me a new concept, quasiparticles, and in particular, fractons, described in two recent Quanta articles. I was immediately intrigued to read that the fractons do not move, though composites of them can move in sub-manifolds (of the overall space). I think that there may be a connection between my set-based formalism and fractons and have reached out to those mentioned in this article (https://www.quantamagazine.org/fractons-the-weirdest-matter-could-yield-quantum-clues-20210726/?utm_source=pocket-newtab), in particular, the authors of this paper (https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.235136). I'm trying to work through this paper and am getting some glimpses of the analogies between their model and mine. It seems that they are extending the existing vector-based formalism of QT to describe these fractional particles, whereas I may have an alternate (set-based) formalism that might be able to describe the phenomena. We'll see.

      BTW, Tom, I tried to read your paper. That's actually kind of hard for me. I'd need close help to understand it.

      Sorry, here are the links:

      [link:www.quantamagazine.org/fractons-the-weirdest-matter-could-yield-quantum-clues-20210726/?utm_source=pocket-newtab[/link]

      and

      [link:journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.235136[/link]

      -Rod

      Thanks for the links, Rod.

      If you follow the Quanta article, you can follow my paper--that's what I mean by radiation without annihilation.

      Fractons--stable, motionless--can actually be described by a soliton standing wave. Quoting from the article: "To see what's so exceptional about fracton phases, consider a more typical particle, such as an electron, moving freely through a material. The odd but customary way certain physicists understand this movement is that the electron moves because space is filled with electron-positron pairs momentarily popping into and out of existence. One such pair appears so that the positron (the electron's oppositely charged antiparticle) is on top of the original electron, and they annihilate. This leaves behind the electron from the pair, displaced from the original electron. As there's no way of distinguishing between the two electrons, all we perceive is a single electron moving."

      From my paper: "Wave-particle duality, however, cannot explain space and time, which we don't think of as physical quantities--and shouldn't, said Einstein and Minkowski--because only the unity of the two, as spacetime, is physically real. We want to demonstrate a more subtle consequence of that unity--a 1-dimensional spacetime field that grows and decays locally as a function of its global topology. That is, taking infinity mathematically as a growth rate and infinitesimal as a decay rate, we find a point that should be absolute--where motion is null, and mass is created and destroyed continuously. Radiation without annihilation."

      (4) (PDF) Dynamic spacetime imposes matter-wave continuity. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353495811_Dynamic_spacetime_imposes_matter-wave_continuity [accessed Jul 30 2021].

      If these guys aren't destroyed by the "crank" label, maybe my proposed neutrino experiment has a chance of actually being performed.

      It's good news for you, too, Rod -- your model (which I have now digested) based on set self-similarity, and fractons seem to fit the bill. A physically real spacetime field gives it continuity--I think you have already described such a field in different terms. More on that later.

      All best,

      Tom