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

        Hi Dr Rinkus, It is very interesing all this. I have considered the ranking of quasiparticles in my model with these 3D quantum spheres with a kind of hopf fibrations on 2D surfaces of these spheres . That could be relevant to consider so the interactions with the vacuum. We must that said differenciate the fermions and bosons . A sure thing seems that it is an emergent phenomenon from causes. These causes can be ranked also ,and it seems that if we have the 3 ethers merging to create the satble baryonic matter, so these causes are complex, outside, inside, on fermions, on bosons, with the fields and excitations. The volumes and the densities and oscillations vibrations so seem relevant to analyse and the life time. Regards

        Hi Ulla, the info processing theory is "Sparsey". The physical theory has no name yet. The key idea was described in my 1996 thesis.

        The first pub describing the core learning (storage) algorithm, in the simplest case of purely spatial inputs, was in my 2010 paper.

        The 2014 paper describes the generalization to the spatiotemporal input case (even though that was the case originally treated in my 1996 thesis).

        The 2017 arXiv paper is the most up-to-date description.

        Probably easiest to look at algorithm in 2010 paper. An underlying goal of the model is to achieve constant time complexity storage AND constant time complexity BEST-MATCH retrieval. No model formally achieves that, in particular, locality sensitive hashing might come closest, but it does not. In fact, Sparsey also does not formally achieve both, but it effectively does. I realize I need to explain that in detail, but the key is that when the overall information processing system is organized as a hierarchy of modules (each running Sparsey's algorithm), constant time complexity storage and best-match retrieval can be realized over arbitrarily long lifetimes. The argument is sketched in this short paper.

        Hi Tom,

        Well I've read through a good bit of the fracton paper. I get some things, but I definitely need to get more background in the basics of TQFT to fully understand it. Nevertheless, I do suspect a deep connection. Even just the idea of fractional charge suggests to me a set-based underpinning. In my terms, the fermionic state, X, of a corpuscle is a set of Q active fermion-planckons. Suppose X corresponds to the presence of one particle in some config. The corpuscle's universal set of fermion-planckons is >> Q. Suppose there is some subset, C, of the corpuscle's fermion-planckons that represent charge. Let C be of size 1000. Then the X can have intersection size of from 0 to 1000. The overall dynamics (physical law) governing the evolution of the corpuscle (and of any corpuscle) might be such that only intersections of certain sizes are possible. Some of them might correspond to integer charges and some to fractional charges.

        Yes, I noticed the quote you cite too. In my model, the the initial electron-positron pair, at T, is just one set of Q active fermion-planckons; the remaining, displaced electron, at T+1, is just another set, though (as described in Fig. 4 of the essay), the two sets would have some significant intersection. And, as the article suggests, the two instances of the electron are only thought of as being the *same* electron because the two positions are along a line of travel (e.g., from T-2, T-1) and delta T is small. A key question then is: is the corpuscle's codespace (number of unique sets of size Q) large enough to represent any arbitrary path of movement through the corpuscle? More generally, is the codespace large enough to represent a very large set of quantum state sequences, where (I'm assuming) the vast majority of those states will actually be ensembles of multiple particles. While this might seem like a tall order, note that I'm assuming the corpuscle is very small, e.g., 10^12 planck lengths on a side. In that case, maybe only ensembles of quite limited size might actually need to be modeled (in order to explain all known larger scale (though still quantum) phenomena. In particular, while I said above, the codespace needs to be large enough to represent *any* possible path through a corpuscle, maybe the actual number of possible paths that need to be represented in such a tiny portion of space doesn't actually need to be that large. That is, even if only 6 paths were represented (one for each face of the cube directed inward across the corpuscle), looking from our much higher scale, we'd see all particle paths that span multiple corpuscles, as essentially straight lines. That is, at our high observational scale relative to the actual mechanics, we don't see antialiasing. BTW, the same principles apply with respect to a particle "moving" from one corpuscle to the next as well. The first state in which the particle appears in the next corpuscle is such another set of Q active fermion-planckons, just chosen from that next corpuscle's universal set of fermion-planckons.

        Regarding your quote from your paper, I think I agree with you and Einstein and Minkowski about not seeing space or time as physical quantities. But what do you mean by "..grows and decays locally as a function of its global topology"? I realize the answer might be long. But maybe you can point me to an appropriate tutorial for that, or I'd be happy to vchat some time if you want.

        What do you mean by the "crank" thing?

        I'm happy that you have put time in to understand my theory. As you can see by now then, it is really extremely simple. The big thing I figured out (in my thesis) is that all you need to do, in order to statistically preserve similarity (of all orders, not just pairwise) when learning an input space, is organize the coding field as a set of WTA modules, and bias the distributions from which winners are chosen (one in each WTA module) based on a global measure of the familiarity of the input (my G measure). The great thing is that computing G is trivial and the whole algorithm runs in fixed time (does not grow as the number of stored items increases). And, then the one other, crucial thing, is that once the items have been stored in this way, retrieving the closest-matching item is also trivial (in fact, in simpler than the learning algorithm). I know that this is a better way of achieving the functionality of locality-sensitive hashing. I've reached out to many of the leaders of that field, but never gotten them to listen. Not giving up.

        Anyway, it gives me a big boost that a person with your knowledge of QT sees some value in what I've done.

        Rod