The Topological Unified Field Theory on the Complex Hopf Fibration

Lorraine Ford

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

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

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

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.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
The use of manmade symbols goes two ways: we use manmade symbols to represent the physical world (e.g. equations that represent law of nature relationships); but we also use aspects of physical matter to represent manmade symbols.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
We describe reality using mathematical symbols, for example the Schrödinger equation,let’s take just this one. It is not necessary to list all our equations lol.
And we store or encode information physically, as bits in computers or as neural patterns in brains....
So yes, it is about how we describe and how we use symbols. But why nature selects states is the key.How do physical systems know what to do?Why does the universe follow laws at all? What causes information to have effects in the world?
We cannot only describe a map, the territory is also important. We cannot just represent; we need causation as well.
That is why information or logic alone cannot do anything without a physical substrate and the dynamics that instantiate it. Logic is not a force, Lorraine. And if it is to be considered a force, then it must have an ontological or physical cause.
This is why the motion and organization of physical structures becomes relevant,especially if different systems merge or interact.
If, for example, a God uses mathematical logic together with a force or fields...., then mathematics alone would not create change. A logical rule, by itself, cannot act. It needs a physical substrate. The only alternative would be some instantaneous GR like one-dimensional field from God,but ontologically, that does not seem viable.
So symbolic statements require an ontology.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford show us that you can develop more Lorraine,

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford No, Lorraine, I am not confusing them. But I insist on the fact that I need to know more about your universal ontological choices, because repeating the point about logical relationships does not help me to understand better what your ontological position actually is, and therefore what you believe the possible causes of reality are with these logical relationships. I don t want to have an answer about what you have repeated so many times, I want to know more about what you have in your mind about these philosophical questions, don t fear to answer, there is no shame to share what we think even if it is incomplete or maybe far of the truth, we are all limited in knowledges about the truths of this universe.friendly

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,

What exists? You seemed to think that qubits exist, but they don't. Qubits and binary digits are manmade concepts that people implement by using special physical setups, and utilising basic aspects of matter. Qubits and binary digits are not themselves basic aspects of the world. We are talking about what basic aspects of the world exist.

So, 1) what are the basic aspects of the real-world moving system?; and 2) what symbols do people use, or need to use, to represent the basic aspects of the real-world moving system?.

I think that, in order to more completely represent the real-world moving system, you only need the following types of symbols: symbols that represent categories (e.g. mass or relative position), symbols that represent relationships between the categories (i.e. equations), number symbols, and logical symbols.

There is nothing controversial in what I am saying, except for the issue of logical symbols. I.e., why are logical symbols necessary, and what aspects of the real-world moving system do logical symbols represent?

The fact is that, despite all the delta and other symbols, equations can only ever represent relationships, and not moving systems. Yet the real world is a moving system, and the fact is that only computer programs can represent moving systems.

Logical symbols, when used in logical statements, just like the algorithmic/ logical statements in the computer programs that drive computer systems, symbolically represent the system's knowledge of its time-place situations, and the system's movement in response to its knowledge of its time-place situations.

So I'm saying that, if you want to have a real-world moving system, you need real-world time-place aspects that are aware of/ know the time-place state of the system, and that move the system's numbers in response to this time-place awareness/ knowledge.

So these logical symbols, represent the basic time-place consciousness of the real-world moving system, and the basic time-place free agency of the real-world moving system. This is quite a different view to the views of those who, in order to preserve their outdated worldview, desperately cling to the mistaken belief that equations can represent a moving system.

Is that ontological enough for you?

I should add that, unlike the pre-determined deterministic law-of-nature relationships which seem to exist at a basic level, I'm saying that there are no pre-determined deterministic "logical relationships" that exist at a basic level, or any level. I'm saying that logical statements are our (human) way of describing the knowledge aspects and the free behaviour aspects of the real-world system or small parts of the real-world system. The "quantum" aspects of the system are the knowledge aspects of the system, and the free agency aspects of the system.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
Hi Lorraine,
Thanks for developing. No, I have never said that qubits really exist. They are a human invention. That is why, in my theory, I have a model with 3D Bloch spherical volumes, and I try to consider the works of Penrose and Bob Coecke for the diagrams. I use mathematics such as Hilbert space and others for the states, it is a tool for description, like for spin SU or other groups. It is mainly a set of more abstract mathematical tools. I also have the 3D quantum spherical series for the theory of spherisation, with the information in the DE encoding the photons and the DM creating ordinary matter, as well as the spherical geometrical topological algebras. So, there are two different systems,one for the mathematical description, and the other for reality with more concrete physical properties like motions,.....

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,

I'm saying that, in order to almost completely represent the real-world moving system, you only need four types of symbols:

Symbols that represent categories (e.g. mass or relative position)
Symbols that represent relationships between the categories (i.e. equations)
Number symbols
Logical symbols.

I ask you again: what types of symbols are YOU saying that you need to almost completely represent the real-world moving system? Do you need symbols for categories? Do you need symbols for relationships between the categories (equations)? Do you need number symbols? Do you need logical symbols? What other types of symbols (if any) are YOU saying that you need in order to almost completely symbolically represent the real-world moving system?

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
Hi Lorraine,I have already explained this. We need, as you say, these logical relationships, but we also need physical structures. Information is the key, but what are its physical structures, and how does it really act at these quantum scales? Is it pure motion, like in my model of spherical volumes with the three systems merging with anti-gravitation and gravitation? I don’t know. But negentropy and entropy need a physical cause.

There is a difference between the abstraction that we use to describe and the physicality that we try to understand. Tell me how you see the system of information ,how the universe knows and utilizes these logical relationships. Because you ask questions, but I also ask you, what is, for you, the physical system of information that supports what you say about logical relationships? Do you need physical structures or not? And if yes, how do these physical systems, ontologically and physically, create the real world , moving and evolving? if there is no physical strutures, so you must develop an other idea like a pure infinite energy and a kind of god or a mathematical accident for the informations, but we need a cause, becausre in telling only that the universe knows what do , it is too much limited, we need causes, ontological and physical.
We are not really speaking about symbols, but about how the universe truly acts. Because a description is one thing, and the real universal mechanics are another.
Friendly,

Steve Dufourny

Steve Dufourny so yes I need these logical symbols for the model of Bloch spherical volumes , a mathematical tool to describe but for the other physical model of spherical quantum volumes, the system seems physical and different about how the universe makes the logical relationships, I beleive that it is about the motions of volumes of series of 3 systems merging....the sense of rotations maybe also and the volumes are the key but I don t assert of course.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,
I'm asking about types of symbols. Physical structures are not a type of symbol. And what types of symbols do you use to symbolically represent this information that you say "is the key"? I'm asking about types of symbols.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford I have already answered. I said that I agree about the logical relationships for the categories, numbers, equations, with if, or, then, true, and so on for the Bloch spherical volumes used in the descriptions, which are man-made, as you say. But I ask you to tell me your ideas about how the universe knows, and what this universe uses as physical systems for information and these logical relationships.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Do you really agree that, in order to almost completely represent the underlying real-world moving system, including everything that YOU are talking about (e.g. physical structures), you only need four types of symbols? Nothing missing?

Symbols that represent categories (e.g. mass or relative position)
Symbols that represent relationships between the categories (i.e. equations)
Number symbols
Logical symbols.

........................

We can't know HOW the universe knows if this knowledge is a fundamental aspect of the universe; we can only potentially symbolically represent WHAT the small time-place parts of the universe know.

Is this knowledge/ information physical, or is it knowledge OF the physical/ information ABOUT the physical? I'm saying that knowledge is OF the physical, i.e. it is not measurable. Only the physical is measurable.

And is agency (jumping the numbers) the same as knowledge/ information? I'm saying that agency is not the same as knowledge/ information.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Yes I agreed with you, I have told it many times Lorraine, you know even if we have deep ontological, philosophical and physical limitations, there is no shame to extrapolate ideas about our unknowns, it is like this that sciences evolves also and researchs. Friendly

« Previous Page Next Page »