The Topological Unified Field Theory on the Complex Hopf Fibration

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine, no I don t suggest this, I agree with your reasoning. Do you also agree that we need physical strucutures for the matters, energy and informations physically speaking even if we have deep physical and ontological limitations considering the fundamental objects and origin of the reality. Regards

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Hi Steve,

Any physical structures are part of the physical world, and the physical world is represented using symbols for categories, relationships and numbers.

I am talking about how people can symbolically represent the world with manmade symbols, not about the world itself.

How people symbolically represent the world is a different thing to the actual world.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine, yes I see your reasoning. You could try to get the book by Bob Coecke, Quantum in Pictures. I can promise you that you are going to love it because it is revolutionary. And regarding your reasoning on quantum computing, he is famous, and this book with its diagrams of wires, boxes, inputs, outputs, logical relationships, symbols, categories, spiders, probabilities, etc., is more than excellent. It is full of symbols and diagrams, it is not a book of words, but he simplifies things with real relevance. 209 pages of pure concrete logic about quantum mechanics, quantum computing, spacetime...... I am formalising my theory with his ideas and papers.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Symbolically representing the world is what leads to real-world results, e.g. getting get a spacecraft to Mars. Physics is all about symbolically representing the physical world. I'm saying that, in order to symbolically represent a moving system, you also need to use logical symbols.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford The logic works because it transforms the symbolism, I think. It flips and swaps the equations to find the stable points of ref. /Ulla,

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Yes Lorraine I know your reasoning now. That is why you d like the book quantum in pictures of Bob Coecke because it is about this. Friendly

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
As quantum theorist Christopher Fuchs said in a Quanta magazine article: “the world is loose at the joints”:

“If you have it in your heart — and not everyone does — that the real message of quantum mechanics is that the world is loose at the joints, that there really is contingency in the world, that there really can be novelty in the world, then the world is about possibilities all the time, and quantum mechanics ties them together.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford the measurement problem is exactly what it is about, a non-commutative act and a transformation. It is the theme of this ongoing competition.

Joints are there to be loose at.

In mathematics we have contradictions and paradoxes doing this? They are often a change in dimensions I think. Just like we get a change in a physical system when we add DoF or dimensions. This I would say is a function of the mind and its ability to handle abstract reasoning and symbols, representations...

Math has its shortcomings here?

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
I'm not talking about ZX-calculus. I'm not talking about a pathetic attempt to blur fundamental differences.

I'm talking about the fundamental difference between statements that represent mathematical relationships (i.e. equations), and logical statements.

Logical statements represent fundamentally different aspects of the world, aspects of the world that can only be symbolically represented as IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Bob Coecke is famous, Lorraine, and his works are not pathetic attempts. If Nvidia invested 600 million in his enterprise Quantinuum three months ago, there are reasons. The ZX calculus he invented is from 2009, and he has developed much more since then. We understood what you explained to us about mathematical relationships and logical relationships, you are not obliged to repeat it. I agree that logical statements fundamentally represent different aspects of the world, and that these aspects can be represented symbolically. The problem is not there. To be concrete, we need to go further into the details of QM, GR, spacetime, computing, mathematics, and logical relationships.
Regards

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
I know Bob Coecke is "famous". But I never liked what he says.

The (useful in itself) Schrödinger equation tries to turn something that is intrinsically different (i.e. the quantum number jumping behaviour of matter, and the quantum-level awareness of situation that seems to exist) into just another boring, routine everyday equation. And I feel that Coecke is also in the game of minimising difference by calling his way of symbolically representing the quantum aspects of the world a "calculus".

The important thing about quantum behaviour is its extreme difference to the mathematical behaviour that was somehow expected to be found at the foundations of the world. So, the important issue is: how does a real-world mathematical system actually work?

Seemingly, a real-world mathematical system works just like the first life: a mathematical system needs to know its on-the-spot surrounding situations and a mathematical system needs to be able to move in response to its on-the-spot surrounding situations.

And the real-world mathematical system is not in the business of proving anything.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
Hi Lorraine,
You can have your points of view, you have this free will. But when we assert things, we must develop them and be consistent with our current mathematics, physics, and computing. What Bob Coecke does is exactly this,, he creates and tries to understand, and it is concrete. It is not only words or ideas he expresses, he actually create concrete, useful physical tools, testable even. If you have better models, then you must formalize them with consistency, dear Lorraine, because speaking is one thing, and creating equations, tools, mathematical developments, relevant formalisms, and innovative, physically grounded laws an other.

I can understand your skepticism, but I see things differently. Bob Coecke’s work is not merely about reducing quantum phenomena to symbolic representations or boring equations.What he does is formalize quantum processes in a way that is operationally concrete, his ZX calculus, diagrams, and formalisms allow us to reason rigorously about quantum systems, quantum computing, and interactions in ways that words alone cannot. The calculus is not about minimizing difference,it is about capturing the complex behaviors of quantum systems in tools that can be applied and tested. It is concrete. Quantum behavior is indeed radically different from classical expectationsand I agree that this difference is crucial. But the strength of Coecke’s approach is that it does not ignore this difference, instead,it translates it into a formal, manipulable language.This allows us to explore consequences, possibilities, probablilities, model processes, and innovate in physics and quantum information in a concrete way.The Schrodinger equation or other quantum formalisms are useful, but Coecke diagrams go further simply for me, they make quantum operations intuitive, composable, and testable, bridging abstract concepts with operational reality and it is relevant ,we can even explore deeper possibilities with his reasonings.

A real world mathematical system, as you point out, must interact with its surroundings,it must be adaptable, responsive, and capable of generating new insights. Coecke framework does exactly that, it is not in the business of proving abstract axioms for their own sake, but in providing tools to create, predict, and formalize quantum behavior in real world applications.
So, while the difference in quantum behavior is indeed extreme, formalization through concrete methods like Coecke works is not an attempt to minimize that difference,it is the only way to reliably work with it. Without formal tools, our ideas about quantum systems remain speculative and untestable. Words and intuition alone cannot replace consistent, rigorous formal structures when exploring the quantum world. Regards

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
No matter how anyone symbolically represents quantum behaviour, how one interprets the representation is what people feel is the important thing. And quantum behaviour can be interpreted as something that is necessary in order for a real-world moving mathematical system to function.

The quantum behaviour of matter shows that a real-world mathematical system does not work as was somehow expected. And how a real-world mathematical system actually works is relevant to the issue of how life arose.

And as opposed to spider diagrams etc, what is important about algorithmic/ logical symbols (like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN), is that they clearly explain what is actually happening in a real-world mathematical system.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
Yes, but we need physical structures for these informations and codes because, as you said, the logical relationships are important,but if these relationships have no concrete physical substrate, if the informations have no physical structures, then the systems cannot utilize the relationships. Thus, motion and dynamics must be a key factor in creating viable systems. If you have another explanation for how systems can possess knowledge, then ontologically you must explain it. Logical relationships alone are abstract,they cannot operate in isolation. For any system to use information or implement logical structures, there must be a physical substrate where states, transitions, and interactions can occur.
Qubits must physically exist and interact via quantum operations. Biological systems, DNA, proteins, and neural circuits physically encode information and enable dynamic interactions.
Computing systems, Software logic requires hardware to manifest computations,without it, the logic cannot act.
Ontologically speaking, information is not independent of the physical world. A relationship without a physical embodiment cannot influence the evolution of a system. Motion, dynamics, and interaction become necessary because they instantiate the logical relations in a physical reality, enabling agency, computation, or life even like behavior. If now you consider a pure mathematical universe and that the ontology implies an other logic about the knowledges of systems , so you must explain how . That can be with strings, or informations in the general relativity, with an universal wave fucntion, or with a God osciilating omnipotent, or a mathematical accident, or others but it must have a cause for the informations, the logical relationships, the fields, the waves, the matters, the energy, the evolution,the life. Because we cannot tell just that these relationships is the key like if all knows what they must do without an ontological consistent choice generally speaking. It is this that I explain. In asserting a fact and in telling that it is like this and that we are limited, so it is assertion without proof or without trying to understand why.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
As opposed to spider diagrams etc, what is important about algorithmic/ logical symbols (like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN), is that they clearly explain what is actually happening in a real-world moving mathematical system.

So for example, what currently on-the-spot time-place IS TRUE is important in a real-world system. What currently IS TRUE is all about the knowledge a system has of itself. What also is important is the AND mathematical symbol: this AND this AND this is currently on-the-spot time-place TRUE.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Qubits don't exist. Instead, physical matter is used to represent the manmade qubit concept.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
What currently IS TRUE is all about the knowledge a real-world mathematical system has of itself; it is not about the knowledge that people have of the system.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford I begin to think that you have difficulties to develop more Lorraine ,about qubits they exist even if they are a human invention,if I create a garden with plants, this garden exist physically , and you repeat always the same ,Lorraine,please develop more, I understand your focus on logical symbols and algorithmic reasoning, and these are useful for describing abstract systems. But qubits do exist as physical systems,they are not merely ideas. A qubit is an engineered quantum system that can be manipulated, measured, and entangled. The abstraction you see is a human construction to describe quantum states, but the underlying quantum phenomena are real, measurable, and physically instantiated. Apparently you don t understand this.
I also notice that your arguments keep returning to the same point about moving mathematical systems without addressing the physical implementation of these logical structures. Logical relationships alone, without a substrate, cannot act or produce outcomes in reality. My focus is on the necessity of physical structures, motion, and dynamics to realize information and knowledge, which qubits, neurons, DNA, or even classical computers demonstrate concretely.A thing that you don t accept and I don t know why. Qubits are real in the sense that they are physically realized quantum systems, the symbolic abstraction is ours, but it corresponds to measurable physical phenomena. Without considering the substrate, your arguments about knowledge and logic remain purely abstract and limited. I am sorry but it is true. You must develop more and please, stop to repeat the same all the times, we have understood. Please develop also generally and ontologically. qubits do exist, even if they are a human invention as a way to describe and manipulate quantum states. The qubit itself is an abstraction, but it represents real physical phenomena,for example, the superposition and entanglement of an electron spin, a photon polarization, or energy states in a superconducting circuit. These physical systems are measurable, manipulable, and obey the laws of quantum mechanics.
Qubits aren’t just theoretical symbols,they are implemented in physical systems whose quantum properties ,.) are exploited for computation, communication, and information processing. I have difficulties to follow your reasonings there . You must develop more Lorraine, Friendly

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford What currently IS TRUE is all about the knowledge a real-world mathematical system has of itself; it is not about the knowledge that people have of the system.

yes but it needs developments ......

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,
The distinction between what actually exists, and how people use symbols to represent what exists, is very important. This is not about gardens. Qubits don't actually exist. Aspects of physical matter are used to represent the manmade qubit concept. It is an important distinction.

Similarly, zeroes and ones don't exist in computers. Voltages, transistors and circuits are used to represent the manmade binary digit concept.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,
I'm sorry, but you seem to continually mix up the symbolic representation of the world with the actual world.

Statements that symbolically represent logical aspects of the world only apply to symbolic representations of the physical aspects of the world.

However, these symbolic representations (e.g. equations) seem to show in detail what actually exists:

What actually exists is 1) something physical, and 2) something that can only be represented with logical symbols (i.e. the system's knowledge of itself, and the system initiating its own movement).

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
I have understood your distinction, and indeed the universe works differently, but we don’t know why, and so we must develop ontological and physical possibilities. If not, the reasoning becomes empty because there is no cause for why these physical systems know what to do. It is too abstract and metaphysical without an ontological and physical grounding. It is this that I am explaining.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford I know this Lorraine about the voltage and the binar codes , the problem is not there.

« Previous Page Next Page »