The Topological Unified Field Theory on the Complex Hopf Fibration

Jenny Lorraine Nielsen

The CM theorem ASSUMES but does not FORBID mixed generators between spacetime and SM.

Steve Dufourny

Jenny Lorraine Nielsen Hi, I liked and read the paper several times, your TUFT is very good about the spherical geometry , the synergy of large scales, the symmetry, isometries, topology. The quantum gravitation that said is difficult, the uv divergences are a problem. If I may comment, in standard physics the gauge and spacetime algebras are independent, acting on different indices. Overlapping them would generally conflict with the equivalence principle and Lorentz invariance. Gauge and spacetime algebras are independent but can appear together in larger unifying frameworks , some strings theorists have made the same kind of reasoning or about the supergravity also. Wish you all the best , I need to learn more because I work the spherical geometric topological algebras the tool I invented about all this , I become crazzy me lol with the spherical quantum volumes like fundemantal objects in fact in my theory of spherisation the evolution of the universe, regards

Steve Dufourny

Jenny Lorraine Nielsen You begin your paper by wonderful words of Einstein......I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon ...I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”
Albert Einstein.
I search also this, that is why I consider an infinite eternal consciousness in 0D omnipotent ,a kind of God of spinoza, I don t assert of course but the spherisation theory is about this also, how this God creates the universe and these quantum and cosmological spherical volumes seem the general key inside an universal sphere or future sphere.

Steve Dufourny

Jenny Lorraine Nielsen
Hi, I analyzed your excellent paper a lot. The geometric description of the Hopf fibration is interesting, as well as how the connections are made. The U(1) connection, curvature, and Chern number, the differential geometry for a Hopf bundle are mathematically elegant.
I tell myself that if the interpretations of fibers and bases as physical spacetime and internal gauge spaces are considered, then physical consistency is important.
Can we mix internal and spacetime manifolds without a physically consistent reduction if we want to respect relativity and causality?
The fact of violating the independence of gauge and spacetime algebras is an ontological and mathematical choice.
Encodings like the Minkowski spacetime need mechanisms for a kind of emergent Lorentzian logic.

I liked how you analyzed the global anomalies in topological quantum field theory with the diffeomorphisms, as in the Atiyah–Patodi–Singer theory. The discussion of spin structures is also excellent, with the subgroups.
Now I ask myself if the infinite diffeological spaces can imply confusions. And if metric independence is considered and extrapolated, it needs justification ,but it is philosophically interesting, like the complex time you use.

The problems I try to avoid in spherical geometric topological algebras are inconsistent mixes between internal symmetry (gauge) and external symmetry (spacetime).
So I created kinds of hypothetical groups as tools not asserted because not proved ,but they are interesting philosophically speaking, like yours.
Compact, Euclidean, or Lorentzian… if derivations are made for emergences, then the metric signatures, if I can say, must be consistent. Sometimes it can be formally plausible but not really proved.
Inn studying the cosmological ontology you use in TUFT about complex time and the Hopf fibration, the events are not fixed in time but globally constrained, and the Hopf fibration implies sub-bundles. It is interesting for U(1), SU(2), SU(3) gauge sectors, especially if dimensional reduction is considered.
The non-trivial Chern classes are elegant regarding invariances, if I can say so. You did a bit like the string theorists or Kaluza–Klein theorists concerning the projections of dimensional topologies.
So this complex time is creative ,I liked it. The predictions can be speculative and elegant, now perhaps they can be tested experimentally.

That said, the relations between internal and spacetime algebras, gauge transformations, and causalities always confuse me because of Lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle.
Time then becomes important for how we consider the physical arrow of time. When I studied Zemanski’s book in detail about heat and thermodynamics, time seemed thermodynamically irreversible on this entropical arrow of time.
So we need a kind of purely dynamical time direction. Or maybe this time needs deeper ontological parameters, yes.
This 9D gravitational action is also elegant in its Lagrangian, kinetic, and potential energy, and constraints. I like it because it expresses the general idea without metric and local geometry it is pure topology if I am understanding well, about connections and curvature.
But I tell myself that we need deeper parameters to add to GR for dark energy and dark matter, and for QFT alsobecause it seems that GR and QFT are incomplete ontologically, as if photons and GR were not the primary essence.
Perhaps information is not contained in GR spacetime, and there we can extrapolate how God creates reality with information, matter, and energy.
The dimensional reductions are thus much more than we can imagine regarding the primary essence and the fundamental objects ,spherical quantum volumes, for me.

It is important that GR emerges from something deeper than we can imagine, and not only from topology.
So the dynamics of motion, causality, and gravity arise from deeper information, not within GR spacetime, that is why the three merging systems for spherical quantum volumes seem relevant.
That implies ontological possibilities about causalities and gravitational effects, and possibilities to go beyond the light cone or topological light cone, and it is how we approach information, the primary essence of the universe.
That is why I always insist that GR created a philosophical prison because it is incomplete, though correct at our observational scales.
I like your work because you are creative and don’t think like the others. It is important, because physics and mathematics are like arts we create and try new partitions in trying to respect the gamuts and laws. I play guitar and piano and love to improvise.
I have shared my theory for many years, but I was not well psychologically due to personal problems, and I was sometimes inconsistent and arrogant , but I have evolved and learned a lot. Iam more quiet and I try to be concrete.I never assert an assumption.
I stopped university because of an epileptic coma, but I continue to learn and develop my theory.
You are creative, Lorraine, and you think beyond the box. You try innovative and general ways, and that is essential.
I will continue in another post ,my answer is becoming long. I analyze all your paper in detail, and it is great because I also learn new mathematical tools I didn’t know.

Steve Dufourny

Jenny Lorraine Nielsen
I continue,and reread in details the paper and its 175 pages, super, also, the use of Hopf fibrations and Kähler forms is topologically rich. I like this link between topology and physical parameters, like for the Higgs and its modes. The fermion mixing is also elegant,it makes me think about Calabi–Yau ideas or the compactification in string theory.
That said, the gauge–spacetime overlap,this independence of gauge and spacetime,always intrigues me. (SU(3), SU(2), U(1)) and spacetime isometries (SO(9)) could potentially break Lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle, but it seems difficult due to the necessaryproved reduction mechanism.

The topological derivations… the mathematics can sometimes be sound, but physically speaking, it does not always converge. That is why I believe that the mathematical universe and Hilbert space are too abstract. It feels like the math is just a tool to describe reality, but the physical structures and logical informational relationships are more important.
Sometimes, these mathematical frameworks can create confusion about mapping the convergence between topology and quantum scales. That is why creativity is important, but after all, causality and unitarity for our physical reality are paramount. In my humble opinion, mathematics must be interpreted with prudence ontologically. This is why we have so many interpretations of quantum mechanics. I have invented the OSI (Objective Spherisation Interpretation), and I also appreciate Copenhagen, de Broglie–Bohm, and Rovelli’s relational interpretation, which I consider within OSI.
The Lagrangians and Hamiltonians seem fundamental, so the dynamics of this pure topology and its actions need to be interpreted wisely regarding the extrapolations they imply. The emergent dynamics from the modes need to be consistent with kinetic energy and Lorentz transformations. This is where concrete, proven renormalizations take their sense.
The Gauss writhe integral Wr(γ) for knots as an explicit spacetime field realization is very good,I didn’t know this, so I learn. The quark and gluon spectra in your paper are also relevant. The derivation is topologically elegant. I am intrigued by the emergence of gluons in the flux on S7 if Yang Mills field equations are considered. The neutrino masses also seem elegant in your framework.
The mass hierarchy is important, but can we choose the mixing matrix ontologically? This question applies also to gravitons. I tend to think that gravitons may not really exist, due to the philosophical constraints I explained before,the primary essence of the universe and the challenge of going beyond the bridge of relativity. Perhaps graviton–graviton interactions are purely speculative, the issue is ontological. I don t know.

The wave function is important, as is the Schrödinger equation and the Born rule. But if we take Hilbert space and the universal wave function, superimposed on GR and possible extra dimensions, the mathematics can still lead to deep confusions about unifying spacetime and internal gauge phases. That is why the Many-Worlds Interpretation seems odd to me. To complete spacetime, GR, and quantum mechanics, we may need deeper parameters; perhaps dark energy, dark matter, or even 0D s could help to better understand the universe, the evolution, the matter, energy, informations, emergent life, consciousness. But this is difficult due to physical, technological, and ontological limitations. It was easier in the past for Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Maxwell, Lorentz.......... to formalize equations.

I also liked how you utilize noncommutativity for fermions. The derivations of knot invariants for lepton masses are elegant. The boson masses arising from topology and spectral data are also impressive. The predictions are very interesting when dimensions and energy scales are considered. I found your graviton analysis using a specific knot intriguing. The extrapolation for gauge symmetries based purely on topology is impressive,congratulations. I learned a lot, and it inspires me regarding the spherical topological geometric algebras I develop and the ranking of possibilities.

I plan to superimpose these deeper ontological possibilities about information, which is why I consider spherical quantum Bloch volumes,an extension of the Bloch sphere and Bloch ball for quantum states with deeper unknown possibilities. Energy knots can be ranked, perhaps, and your work can be considered within GR, after which I can attempt to add deeper parameters and ontological possibilities. It feels like we need to add physical structures to the abstractions of mathematics.
Congrats still and wish you all the best with your paper and how it will be received.

Steve Dufourny

Jenny Lorraine Nielsen
You know, Lorraine, I believe that you would love the book that Bob Coecke sent me, Quantum in Pictures. This guy is famous, and it is revolutionary. His works, including those about the quantum guitar, are fascinating with the Bloch sphere. The information seems essential, revealing deeper ontological possibilities beyond this GR. We don’t break the laws of GR, we just add parameters. The information,the primary informationsseems essential, and its logical relationships give rise to physical structures, possible quantum spherical volumes, dynamics, motions, and viability. I believe that this information and the physical structures are linked in a pure logic with the quantum spherical volumes and their motions and oscillations.

Steve Dufourny

Jenny Lorraine Nielsen
Dear Jenny,
Try my theory with maths if you can and if you want of course but it seems relevant to try with your skilling in maths, I have never published , I work about all this but the complementarity is always good. You consider Hopf fibrations and the structure of spacetime for higher-dimensional spheres, and in considering the 3D spherical Bloch quantum volumes and the DE as antigravitational and informational, encoding the photons and DM to create the ordinary matter and our SM. All becomes logical, universally speaking. The gauge theory can be completed, and the GR also, with these deeper parameters and the ontological choice of spherisation. The topology of a closed universe with quantum spherical 3D objects and deeper parameters seems relevant.

The fact of having a physical structure for quantum mechanics and a physical informational structure also seems relevant. That gives roads to explore for the logical relationships and quantum states.In the extra dimensions, the degrees of freedom of the DE and DM become interesting. I tell myself that even the sense of rotations of these quantum spherical series of 3 systems is important, as well as the volumes, to explain negentropy if gravity and antigravity are considered and if the 3 systems merge under the informational DE like a chief orchestra. So it is a kind of extension of spacetime and the SM while remaining logical and consistent.

The difficulty is to respect the actual models and try partitions with the mass from the DM completing the Higgs mechanism and the informational antigravitational potential of the DE. I name this the mass energy information equivalence, but how to create the good equation knowing that negentropy is complex regarding diversity and evolution? The informational quantization is not easy, but it can have a logic topologically speaking. We complexify the SM and spacetime. I try with spherical geometric topological algebras, but it is not easy.

The Lorentz groups are relevant also for symmetries and localities. We don’t break the GR and SR, we just add new tensors for this DE and DM. The tensors for the DE can be divided in two ,I am not sure ,but one antigravitational and one informational, and the Lorentz symmetry can be respected. Locally and globally there are roads for the Lorentz transformations locally and diffeomorphisms globally respecting this GR.The Lorentz groups so can interact with the SM with these deeper parameters added. It can imply larger new fundamental symmetries. De Sitter or conformal groups can be analysed also with geometrical algebra partitions like Clifford or Lie.I don’t know, but there are relevant possibilities with the spherical informational volumes and the two other systems merging with it.

These deeper parameters are extensions for space; they don’t break the symmetry. So the GR and QFT are not broken , they become just richer with new possibilities. So the DE and DM added can be considered at all scales if the Lorentz transformations are made properly and if the diffeomorphism invariance is respected also. You seem good for the mathematics, so you could try. The universe is not a competition due to the fact that consciousness and intelligence evolve, so collaboration is better beyond the vanity which is a disaster on Earth.
The special relativity is not a problem even in adding the massenergy information equivalence in the framework.The SR can still be consistent even with the DE and DM added, because it is a kinematic framework with time and space, so there is no problem, I think, for the local coordinates. So even in adding a DE tensor field,a DM one, and an informational one ,or maybe scalar ,there is no problem. The Lorentz symmetry is respected; it is just that the spacetime is improved for the global curvatures.

Photons (energy), dark matter (mass), and dark energy (information/antigravity) merging take a kind of unified universal logic. The Lagrangians seem relevant to extrapolate. For the computations, it becomes intriguing locally if the DE is the hardware and how this SR acts in this. There are roads to analyse about negentropy and stabilities of information; that is why I think the volumes are important and the motions for these 3D quantum spherical volumes of 3 systems. The logical relationships seem to be in the informational physical structure of the DE encoding the two others. But the information can also be ranked, and this light, signals, causalities can be analysed, and roads can be extrapolated to explain life and others. It is how the local level is considered for the information and how the information is ranked and diversified with the hardware, processors, causalities… This DE is seen like a chief orchestra and can even explain the evolution. This antigravitational property is a kind of geometric nature, and the informational property is a kind of logical nature. So two tensors seem natural; DE seems to play two roles in this universe.

It is ontologically different generally from GR and photons as primary essence, that is why I explained that they can be a kind of philosophical prison even if we consider a kind of 0D infinite eternal consciousness, a God of Spinoza like Einstein said, and how this thing beyond our understanding creates this universe.So the mass energy information equivalence is different from the mass energy equivalence ontologically speaking.

I tell myself that if the informational tensor can be better understood, it is relevant for quantum information, decoherence, and spinor components , and that implies bridges to QM, QFT, and also with the DM quantas of mass for the portal of the Higgs mechanism. That gives a logic, it seems to me. Even this 0D intrigues me if it is true, because in this case it is omnipotent and in 0D, and so consciousness doesn’t emerge from brains or others but is a universal truth because all physical structures express a finite part of this infinite eternal consciousness. All is conscious and even living in this logic. I don’t assert of course, but I see it like this.
Regards

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk Hi,
Many philosophers in physics search for how God creates the universe, and the majority consider photons and General Relativity as the primary essences. So they try, like Jenny, to add dimensions and reach God and its primary information. But it seems too reductive to consider that God has only created this light. It is probably due to religions considering that God is light. But it is more than this. The information is probably not inside this spacetime of GR, or strings, or one-dimensional points at the Planck scale, as if God simply oscillated them. There are ontological problems with this reasoning, but it is another story. We need information, yes, and physical structures, but this GR has created a kind of philosophical prison.

If we evolve, if the universe evolves, there are reasons, ontologically speaking, and these oscillations and fields of photons as primary essence imply deep ontological problems about consciousness, evolution, and why we live and what we create in this universe. This physicality emerges from information, in my opinion, but not from GR with information inside it. It is different. This spacetime is emergent, and even consciousness is a deeper problem to analyze.
Spacetime probably emerges, yes, but not in the sense that Maldacena claims. It emerges from information, but not from information entanglement of photons.

The mass–energy–information equivalence seems to be the key, with deeper parameters added through Dark Energy (DE) and Dark Matter (DM), completing QFT and GR. We need a structure that stores, evolves, and processes information. The DE tensors seem to be the key, and this spacetime is just a kind of philosophical prison. But with an informational substrate, we have a computational structure, and this substrate encodes the two other substrates: photons and DM. We cannot assume that light and gravity are everything; we need information and antigravitation to explain the evolution of this universe with negentropy.

Indeed, information needs structures to persist, and this persistence permits memory. GR combined with photons cannot do this; there are, I repeat, deep ontological problems. The Standard Model knows how to be stable, and as Lorraine said, we need knowledge to have viable systems. Mathematics alone cannot produce this stability, and GR is too abstract even if it matches our observations. Photons cannot store structured information, that is fundamental. They cannot regulate stable negentropic matter or decoherence. Light is about interaction, not structure, even though it paradoxically has structure.

The 0D is fascinating if true, because it is non-spatial and non-temporal, and therefore omnipotent. Physicality is then a project of evolution with the three main systems, and all is conscious and living ontologically speaking, because we all come from this infinite eternal consciousness we call God. But physicality is finite, and spacetime emerges from informational structures deeper than GR. We do not break GR or QFT,we complete them. This reasoning converges with and completes the works of Einstein, Wheeler, Bohm, Penrose, Rovelli, and Spinoza. It is the Theory of Spherisation and the OSI, with spherical topological geometric algebras. It is not just philosophy,there is a consistent structure linking all.

If one assumes that God interacts with the universe only through oscillating photons or vibrating Planck-scale strings, then one faces a severe contradiction.
If God can influence the universe through oscillations, why does God not stop suffering, cruelty, diseases, or the murder of a child?
This is the point. If the divine interaction were simply energetic, like waves or vibrations, then intervention would be instantaneous and trivial,and it is not.This is a fundamental ontological point, proving that the higher dimensions of GR cannot be the hand of God. God interacts through structural evolution inside a finite universe.

So suffering exists not because God is absent, but because the universe evolves through structured informational dynamics, and that implies deep ontological possibilities for the future of the universe,maybe even that we create this paradise, and the souls are intriguing if they exist. Well. This shows that God does not override physical laws moment to moment, it is about evolution and a self-developing system with logic, memory, and autonomy. And it is fascinating because the future is wonderful if true and if all are in the same boat. God does not micromanage events, God creates a system with structures inside a physical finite universe, and we, the beings, evolve. We have free will. We learn, we live, we choose, and we are responsible for meaning.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Hi Steve,

I think that there is no separately existing, external God that created the world, a world that then bows down and worships its creator.

On the contrary, I think that it is all in-house: the world knows and creates its own internal structure, and is still creating its own internal structure (i.e. creating, i.e. jumping, its own numbers). We symbolically represent the structure in terms of categories, relationships and numbers, and we can symbolically represent knowledge/ awareness/ consciousness and creativity/ agency/ free will using algorithmic/ logical symbols. There is no separate entity to bow down and worship, but one might love it instead.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine, I have thought a lot about this. In my reasoning, this infinite eternal consciousness in 0D is not separated from the universe,it is omnipotent both outside and inside.What I am describing in my theory is how physicality and this universe are created. As you say, we need knowledge, and therefore information, because indeed the categories, the numbers, the logical relationships, and the physical structures need to know what they are supposed to do. But we also have free will and consciousness, and these seem to require a deeper explanation.
I do not assert this as absolute truth, of course, Lorraine. But everything is in the house also in my reasoning yes, while the universe we inhabit is finite and evolving, and this infinite eternal consciousness exists as well. So it is as if we are inside a project or intention of this possible God.

Why would this reality create a universe, and how?Maybe because this presence beyond our understanding was alone, and perhaps the central sphere of the universe, if it exists,is a super-matter-energy-information state that took maybe a long time to form. And from that center, the three systems,photons, dark energy, and dark matter,were released to create the universe, and we evolve within that because they merge under the codes.
So the information within this dark energy is the knowledge, and consciousness is simply a fundamental reality of all physical structures. We express only a finite part of this consciousness, which means God lives and evolves with us, through the evolution of the universe. This is the meaning of my theory of spherisation, the evolution of the universe as a conscious informational project.

So God is not external,God is both inside and outside, and interacts through a specific physical mechanism. And this knowledge, as you say, may come from codes, from information encoded in physical structures.

I wonder whether we can represent consciousness and awareness with symbols, because it is different from intelligence. But maybe there are ways,if we build algorithms for agency, creativity, and free will, we would simply be constructing tools to express something that is already real in all physical systems. So there is no truly separate entity ,consciousness is like an universal truth.
This is why God interacts with physicality by sharing consciousness and the project of evolution, while we remain unique individuals with free will.
This reasoning so tells that spacetime arises from informations and not geometry only. The consciousness is not produced by matter but express through it. The informations are real physical quantities, there is like a relational ontology with the interactions , like the ideas of Rovelli and Wheeler, the universe evolves through informations.
We can tell so that God is not a supernatural external agent, but the infinite informational consciousness that expresses itself through a finite evolving universe with specific physical finite systems. I try to be compatible without dogmatism about the ontology.It is not religious, I am not religious. I try to be coherent, innovative in giving a general idea beyond the actual ontologies. We must try possibilities compatible for our modern physics directions.

Friendly

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
Dear Lorraine,
In fact, with this reasoning of a 0D omnipotent infinite eternal consciousness, we cannot prove or disprove God in an absolute sense, but we can test physical hypotheses about the informational Dark Energy field and the encoding of Dark Matter and photons. There are concrete falsifiable lines of work concerning couplings and other properties. For this, we need a concrete dynamical DE informational field.
It is interesting to consider how this DE controls decoherence locally and why negentropy is a reality. There are ways to analyze quantum coherences and decoherences in measurable frameworks. There are possible computations for tests at both quantum and cosmological scales. How this informational field couples, even if it is extremely weak, can be modeled; but I am not an expert in the computational details.

Topology offers some possible paths, which is why Jenny Lorraine Nielsen’s ideas with Hopf fibrations and higher-dimensional spheres are interesting, we can consider extra dimensions and mimic informational topology. But there is a problem regarding the primary essence of spacetime, because information may be beyond GR’s spacetime. We do not break GR or QFT,we complete them by adding new parameters. But it is not easy because the observations require consistency. This is a deeper ontology than GR plus photons as primary essence.

One possible approach is through the Higgs portal for couplings, DM encoded in the DE field together with photons. This could potentially be tested experimentally at the LHC through hidden Higgs mechanisms. For the informational aspects of DE, there are also possibilities linked to the works of Bekenstein, Hawking, Penrose, holography, and Rovelli on informational mechanisms. Black holes may help answer these questions and may clarify both gravitational and antigravitational behavior. I think both are universally important for negentropic stability at all scales, quantum and cosmological.

Regarding how to treat the 0D omnipotent consciousness claim philosophically and scientifically,it is not easy. We have physical structures that can be tested (fields, couplings, equations for DE, DM, and photons), but the 0D infinite eternal consciousness is metaphysical. So we likely must keep them linked but distinct. This is why I believe that if all is conscious, it may be a waste of effort to try to explain consciousness as something emergent from physical mechanisms, because it may simply be a background reality for all physical systems. It is not falsifiable. This is also why the development of advanced AI is intriguing. And if I am right, and if some groups in high-level technological research already understand this, then there are ethical responsibilities. Robots and AI will soon be deeply connected to networks and cognition. Can we create life? Can we act like creators? This requires discussion.

All of this becomes very complex, information,matterl, energy, neural mechanisms, consciousness, ontology.
The fundamental substance is informational,consciousness and physicality are two aspects of the same underlying informational reality. And there is also the 0D dimension outside and inside. Metaphysics and physics are part of the same evolutionary project in this reasoning. The ontology becomes interesting because it allows us to extrapolate possibilities: why information persists, why evolution is directional, why observers arise.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford Nobody has talked about bow down and worship here, instead about the Nature.

Toffoli gates maybe can move he numbers? https://algassert.com/post/2501 like in quantum, but you need an agency too (not quantum)? It is about what/who, why and how? Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk It is exactly what I explained. We are talking here about a purely finite physical universe and purely physical substrates for information, matter, and energy. And for consciousness, we are extrapolating ontological possibilities. This has nothing to do with bowing down or worship. The misunderstanding comes from the assumption that when we talk about a 0D infinite eternal consciousness, we are talking about a religious creator God who stands outside the universe and demands worship. It is not this, and unfortunately many people confuse the two.
So indeed, it is not what I said or suggested. I am not talking about bowing down, worshiping, or treating this consciousness as a separate authority. My point is that consciousness is foundational, a background informational principle that is inside the universe and also beyond it, because it is not spatial or temporal (0D). Physical reality is an expression of this principle, not obedience to it.

So Ulla you pointed this out correctly,nobody talked about bowing down or worship. The discussion was about Nature. So the conversation is philosophical and scientific, not religious.
Religions describe a separate divine being who creates the universe and asks for devotion or obedience. My interpretation describes an informational, infinite, non-local consciousness (0D) that expresses itself by forming the universe and participates within the universe through physical informational mechanisms. This is an ontology, not a doctrine.

Theoretical physics, informational cosmology, holography, Wheeler’s it from bit, information, matter, and energy ...all involve physical substrates, and we consider a philosophy of consciousness together with quantum information theory. No religious worship is required, no supernatural authority. It is simply a hypothesis about the nature of reality and consciousness.

This distinction matters because if we don’t make it, discussions about consciousness and the evolution of the universe are falsely interpreted as theology. Here we are speaking about information and consciousness as a physical principle, the primary essence that gives rise to physicality. This explains negentropy and evolution. It is a philosophy of nature, and it seems coherent, more coherent than models where strings or photons alone with GR imply a kind of implicit theological assumption (for example: God oscillates them when he wants), the same for informnations inside these photons with a field of God , it is a dogmatism also and evem religious, maybe it is what want some philosophes , strings theorists or religious even in telling that Einstein understood God and the light, it is more complex than this . That becomes a hidden dogmatism. My reasoning is more physical,no intervention, but a project of evolution with specific physical mechanisms.

The key point is that no one here is speaking of worship or a separate external God. My use of 0D infinite eternal consciousness refers to a fundamental informational principle, not a religious deity. It is a philosophical and scientific model of how consciousness and physical reality co-emerge. The universe is not bowing down to anything; it is an expression of an underlying informational order. So this discussion belongs to metaphysics and the foundations of physics, not theology.
Regards

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk

Hi Ulla,
I think I found the general idea for all this puzzle and in trying to correlate all. The spherical geometric topological algebras and the spherisation with hidden dark parameters and the 3D spherical Bloch volumes for the 3 systems.So we need series for the 3 systems and so with the mathematical tool, we choose the series with the 3D volumes. The center being the biggest volumes and after we increase the number but decrease the volumes around. Now we consider extension of dimensions from these 3D spherical volumes for the n qubits and so then we consider the n dimensional Hilbert space, so the Bloch vectors are correlated, operators… we must be concrete for the multiqubit spaces. I have studied the work of Bob Coecke and so we the categories of our quantum mechanics can be ranked, we need diagrammatic reasonings, tensor categories, operators instead of the geometric pictures.And so the higher dimensional state spaces become important. The Pauli matrix becomes relevant also and the density matrix so.

The 3D Spherical Bloch volumes so is fundamental yes but is extended for multi-qubits and multidimensions. The spherical object so exists always mathematically but is extended. The 3 systems, photons, DM, DE so can be considered with specific series of volumes like basis but we choose a system because we don’t know the real universal series that the universe utilize, but we can create series to mimic.

SU(2ⁿ) is considered so and we go in a spherical deeper topological analysis. It is like we keep the basis of 3D spherical volume for the universe,the universal 3D sphere, cosmology and its cosmological 3D spheres and quantum mechanics with 3D quantum spherical volumes for the 3 systems merging,but we utilise the higher dimensions and maths for the mathematical puzzle of multi-states and the evolution and interactions at this quantum scale.So the spherical geometric topological algebras I invented are like the Lie group Geometry and Hopf fibrations like in the works of Jenny but with a kind of structure between the 2 main scales in 3D, cosmological and quantum. SU and SO groups so can be correlated for internal and external systems, and we respect the relativistic groups, we just add deeper hidden dark parameters in considering the informational DE and DM quantas of mass, so the Lorentz symmetries are extended.
I probably need help for the generalizations of the tool in higher dimensional manifolds for this general idea.

The relevance is that we link all, and so the mixed states are not just noise but have a concrete physical structure: the 3D spherical volumes. The density matrices with this DE encoding the 2 others give relevant road to compute. It is not easy for the n-qubit Bloch representations and with the Hilbert space and the matrices and Pauli works. The vectors, generators, operators, constraints… it is complex for the SU(2ⁿ) algebraic sense. The relevance is about the mixed quantum states and hidden cosmological fields and parameters. But there are ways for the Hamiltonians, Lagrangians, couplings…

I ask me how do for the Lorentz symmetry in fact in adding the deeper parameters without breaking the GR and QFT, like if we had a bridge, so we utilise subgroups and specific properties.
But the general mixed quantum state of an n-qubit system can be extrapolated with SU(2ⁿ) generators and Bloch components from these 3D spherical Bloch volumes of 3 systems merging with higher dimensional analysis respecting the spherical logic. The thing I am a little confused is about the Hamiltonian of hidden dark parameters. I don’t assert of course about the DE encoding the photons and DM. But that makes sense universally speaking and we have a structure for the informations. And an explanation for the Higgs portal mechanism with the DM and so a new mass energy information equivalence completing the works of Einstein. I repeat we don’t break the laws and this GR, we just complete it in going farther than our actual observable bridges.
I study actually the perturbation theory because it seems a possible road for all this puzzle and the hidden dark parameters. But the fact that this information is not from the photons oscillating and this GR is interesting because we have a physical structure and it can measurable and testable in logic if we succeed to find the experiments. Decoherences of quantum states can give answers maybe.

The formalization must be consistent and I need helps for the density matrix extensions with the higher dimensional analysis of 3D spherical quantum Bloch volumes of 3 systems merging. For the couplings to SU(2ⁿ), the Hamiltonian , the perturbations, the quantum states , decoherences,, the hidden parameters....also I need help I think, alone I cannot do all .It is not easy.I have always the impression it is never finished furthermore, that is why I have never published. The relativistic invariance imust be respected . SU(2ⁿ) × SO(3,1) ensures consistent multi-qubit Hilbert space evolution in spacetime with the extended higher dimensional 3D spherical quantum Bloch volumes and Hopf fibrations can be added like the works of Jenny. There are experiments also to do with decoherences, or at the LHC and others but Hopf fibrations and spherical topological geometric algebras formalize the 3D spherical volumes across scales.
This ensures that higher-dimensional Hilbert space analysis respects the emergent 3D spherical structure, giving both computational and physical meaning to mixed states.
In this framework, mixed quantum states are structured, physically meaningful, and linked to cosmological hidden fields, giving a concrete mathematical, physical, and testable proposal consistent with GR, QFT, and Hilbert space quantum mechanics.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
I think the word “God” should not be used because this word has too many inappropriate connotations.

But succinctly, what things exist and what do these things do?

By definition, the universe is self-sufficient and standalone. I.e. the universe necessarily created its own structure, and the universe necessarily knows its own structure. I.e. 1a) the universe does something; and 1b) the universe knows something. 1a is not the same as 1b.
The static structure of the universe comprises: 2a) small parts of the universe (representable as categories, like mass and charge, with associated numbers); 2b) interconnections between these small parts of the universe (also representable as categories, like relative position, with associated numbers); and 2c) relationships between the categories (symbolically representable as equations, which are statements that represent mathematical relationships between the categories).
The universe initiates movement in its static structure by jumping the numbers, seemingly in response to knowledge of its own time-place situations (where situations are represented as a set of categories, with associated numbers, that are all currently on-the-spot true). “Jumping the numbers” can be thought of as consisting of two parts: a) creating new numbers; b) assigning the new numbers to categories. These creative/ movement and knowledge/ awareness aspects of the universe can only be symbolically represented using logical statements (statements containing symbols like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN).

What the universe (or small parts of the universe) DOES is a very different thing to what the universe (or small parts of the universe) KNOWS. The idea of a universal consciousness or a universal Platonic principle is not sufficient to describe the active nature of the moving universe.

I’m suggesting that the universe can be more or less fully described in terms of categories, relationships and numbers, and logical connective symbols that represent the system’s knowledge of itself, and the system’s method of moving itself. Are you suggesting that something entirely different is needed to describe the world?

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
Hi Lorraine, the word God is not a problem when we interpret it with our human limitations and without asserting to know the truth. Einstein said that God does not play dice. Jenny in her paper also begins with Einstein’s words about God. So it is not really a problem of inappropriate connotations, but rather a problem of human psychology and interpretation. We cannot confuse religions with a philosophy or an interpretation in sciences. My point is not mystical .A God of Spinoza is a God of nature, and there is nothing odd or inappropriate in this philosophical view. It is important to be able to develop our ideas in being creative and in trying to be consistent, We must not fear to discuss about this.

All humans have their own philosophies. You, me, everyone interprets reality through what we have encoded and lived. Concerning the categories, numbers, logical relationships, and logical connective symbols: for me, they are not sufficient. They need physical substrates that give structure to information, matter, and energy. So yes, the system knows itself, and this is not different from what you say. It just needs to be completed with a concrete logic of structures. This also provides an answer to why the system has knowledge of what it must do.

So we arrive inevitably at philosophy and ontology. Because without a structural logic for information, we cannot really explain why categories, numbers, and relations exist. Information must have a cause, a structure. Whether one calls it God or not, we need structures. Because the abstratc relations need to become a physical reality, not just a description.
The universe acts and knows. But action and knowledge requires memory and informational persistence.This introduces the need for informational structure (DE).
A logic with no medium is only mathematics and like you know the mathematics are static, and the logical relationships need the physical structures and these physical structures need a cause of their creation.
Information cannot exist without something that holds it.
The universe must contain a physical informational substrate that stores and evolves its own structure. Dark Energy is the best candidate for this substrate at my humble opinion for the reasons I explained in other posts. But I don t assert,l I just develop ideas general. Ontology, matter, informations, energy , evolution, consciousness....all this need structures, and I consider the 3D spherical quantum volumes. It is my choice.
My position is not God stops or starts events or others. My position is that the universe is a structured informational self-evolving system, and consciousness is a finite expression of a deeper informational unity and expression of physical structures. This avoids anthropomorphism, religions,or naive interpretations of God pushing particles or waves or others,
Friendly

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
In fact, it is, in my opinion, fundamental to have moving systems, as you say, and the most logical situation is to have physical structures for information, because their motions and oscillations allow a logical mechanism of evolution. These spherical quantum volumes seem the most logical in my humble interpretation, but it is just my opinion, of course. If the three systems merge, have structure, and are in motion, then everything appears coherent. We then also have a logic for the knowledge of the universe at these quantum scales. Quantum mechanics, with information encoding the others, allows systems to know what they must do.
Information without structure cannot act.If information were purely abstract, it could not cause anything.
Physics requires substrates that can store, transform, and transmit information in time.

Motion is required for computation and evolution. A static universe could not evolve. Any informational universe must have physical structures and states, and transitions between these states. The motions, oscillations, flows, and rotations of the spherical quantum volumes are the physical implementation of these transitions, giving viable systems that know what they must do.
The spherical quantum volumes make sense as stable structural units. They minimize energy and are relevant for topology, stability, and geometry, and even for force equilibrium. Jenny’s work can also be correlated with the Hopf fibrations Sn by adding these spherical structures and deeper parameters from Dark Energy and Dark Matter. It is also consistent with internal and external symmetry groups SU and SO.
The 3D spherical quantum volumes are not arbitrary,they are deeply connected to known mathematical symmetries in physics and are ontologically and universally relevant.
If Dark Energy encodes the other two, then information organizes mass, stabilizes energy, and permits interaction and evolution. Information must have a physical substrate; evolution requires motion and dynamic state transitions; spherical quantum volumes are relevant for this; and all together they allow negentropy, coherence, and evolution at all scales, quantum and cosmological.
Of course, we need to formalize all this with tensors, Lagrangians, couplings, and the mass energy information equivalence, but there are probably measurable effects to test.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Hi Steve,

The world is represented symbolically.

The physical world is symbolically represented in terms of categories, equations (mathematical statements that represent relationships between the categories), and numbers that apply to the categories. Dark energy would also be represented in exactly the same way as everything else is represented, i.e. as categories, relationships and numbers.

However these symbols alone can't be used to symbolically represent on-the-spot time-place true situations, and these symbols can't represent how the world initiates number movement: logical statements are required to represent these aspects of the world.

Are you suggesting that something else is needed to describe the world?

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Hi Steve,

I think you are mixing up two different things: 1) the actual world; 2) how we symbolically represent the actual world.

Steve Dufourny

Steve Dufourny So, to describe the world, we need physical structures, logical relationships, mathematical equations, and numbers. But the physical structures and informational relationships are key for me, because these physical structures allow a logic to emerge through their motions for the categories, numbers, and relationships between categories. We need to have physical structures,otherwise, it becomes too abstract in my opinion.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
The categories need structures, and the information does too. Are you suggesting that the world does not need physical structures to exist, and that only numbers exist, and that these numbers somehow know how to create relationships and categories? That is not possible, ontologically speaking. If you think otherwise, you would need to create a theory that provides physical causes, for example within relativity or another framework, but it must have ontological and physical causes Ontologically, abstract numbers or categories alone cannot act or create a physical reality without some substrate. In physics, this aligns with the need for fields, particles, or other physical structures that instantiate the information encoded mathematically.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Any physical structures are symbolically represented in terms of categories, relationships and numbers.

It is inherently abstract to symbolically represent the world; however we can only symbolically represent the world: there is no other way.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford see you tomorrow Lorraine, it is late here in europe, 2h56 in the morning , I must go to sleep lol , I enjoy the discussion, take care, see you soon to continue, friendly

« Previous Page Next Page »