Around @18 min. It is nonsense to "emerge "spacetime from logic. There is no meaning to such talk, it is gibberish. You need to appreciate the interplay between mathematics (not physics) and Physics.
The notion of a "space" in mathematics is something some philosophers sought to "derive" from pure logic. But I think this is ill-conceived. An abstract "space" is something one *defines*. Whether it is useful or not then depends upon the context one adopts. So in physics one might want spacetime, and show some other abstractions have an equivalent structure, but for physics it is observations that dictate what abstractions are useful, and the more abstract layer one might find to introduce a notion of spacetime is not necessarily a real physical layer.
It is very difficult to discover what the real physical layers are, since we only perceive reality through our sense perceptions and application of logical thought and intuitive thought, which are imperfect. *So difficult* that some say it is impossible and (foolishly,imho) retreat to Idealism, which is a cause of a lot of waste of human minds. I do not think objective science is impossible, it is just very hard. One needs some humility.
I am feeling very strong vibes of 𖥐𖥕𖢑𖡮ꛚ𖠢𖢧𖠢 ꛘꚶ𖢧𖥐𖧥𖨚𖠢 madness wrapped in mathematical rigour. Being formally precise is no guarantor of sanity nor physical verisimilitude.
This smells suspiciously like yet another instance of everyone who knows a lot about subject 𝓧 thinking physics is just 𝓧. Maybe for a change these nerds should contemplate the possibility physicists know a little bit.
That said, the Cat theory is juicy delicious meta-mathematical morsels, regardless of the M-theory ᲇ𝕣⋒𝕚ℼ𝕨☉𝕣⩕𝕤.
I hope people realize gauge theories (in physics) are already high level abstractions. The gauge freedom is a redundancy, i.e., unphysical. So when n-Cat theorists abstract gauge theory it is an abstraction of an abstraction, very far removed from physics. To get back to Earth with actual physics requires some "decategorification," and quite a significant amount of it, with lots of coffee!
Gauge redundancy is not unimportant, but one must take care in interpreting the information the associated symmetry expresses --- the cosmology or the homotopy type of the moduli space of state configurations. One must then further worry about what the "quantum state" actually is, since in my framework the "state" is still not physics, it is an instruction for a frame transformation. So one needs an even further decategoification alter to get right down to the elementary particle "turtles". I do not think this is very widely appreciated. Most theorists stop once they get to a spinor (a "state"). This is not the correct place to stop, if you want to think about physical ontology.
It is literally not possible for something to come from nothing. If one simply ponders on the statement this is obvious.
And yet people start with something either as small in size as possible and/or something as short in duration as possible and then try to CONVINCE the listener/reader that the statement is resolved.
NO! There is absolutely no way for something to arise from non-existence. Therefore, THE PROBLEM EXISTS WITH THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK UPON WHICH THE STATEMENT IS BASED!
I have identified and rectified the inherent problem. The problem is with the entire concept of "nothing". In short, "nothing" = "unicorn". The realization of such renders all questions about "nothing", irrelevant and impotent. The question is based upon an incorrect concept and is therefore meaningless/nonsensical.
I will be presenting the theory in subsequent posts.
Superpoints in category theory act as fundamental reference states, much like stable coherence nodes in a wave system. Coherence gradients describe how phase structures evolve, and these transitions can be seen as morphisms between superpoints. This suggests that category theory provides a natural framework for modeling structured coherence shifts, transformations between stable reference states. If my reasoning is correct...very interesting either way.
Can we question Urs' humanity here??? 🤣 @16min The "big bang", "wormholes", "black holes", "strange quark", "charm quark", "chromodynamics", &c., and even "TOE", may be jokes, but they are good jokes, hence should be retained by any physicist with a jot of humour in their soul.
You can make space out of light but you can't make light out of space. This means light is fundamental and therefore the super point emerges from the photon field. You should check out my piece on light-time Relativity.
They need crystals for starters, which are structures in spacetime. In the LR-symmetric Standard Model (say, so a pretty good framework) there is a non-trivial vacuum, and it has no excited photon modes, only zero-dimensional Bogoliubov scalar.
If one can "build" the photon from spacetime topology then I do not need to think the other way around like you imply. One can have regions of spacetime with no propagating photon modes.
Fair enough, they're making space within space so we need all the equipment to do that. My point is however that they are creating space within a field - if you consider the universe is a field... Its space has been created.
I would not say that. The fields are fictional. Wavefunctions are fictions. See Jacab Barandes stuff. Feynman thought so. An accounting tool for working out amplitudes is not fundamental reality, it is a calculation tool.
This'd is easy to see in the Spacetime Algebra framework for QM, which is equivalent to Dirac Theory and Yang-Mills theory spinors, but uses the 16-dimensional graded Clifford algebra for Cl(3,1) —local Minkowski frames. The spinors are then clearly revealed to be transformation instructions acting on the spacetime frame field (local co-moving frame of the *actual* oriented particle).
Bosons (the other fields) are similarly treated in the STA. The generators are just STA multivectors. (With bipartite structure for the gluons.)
My point is that you do not have to believe any of this, but it is perfectly valid and gives you a theory where spacetime is fundamental, and the fields are fictional (and necessary - as accounting tools - if you desire a Hamiltonian time evolution story, see Feynman's Nobel Lecture.)
If you like to insist a field ontology, then it is fine, I guess, but very problematic. Field theories (for QFT) have still not been well defined, except simple unphysical ones, as in TQFT.
Sounds like you're getting closer to the truth about the origin of the simulation multiverse. "Superpoint" doesn't have quite the same majestic ring as "God" or "Messiah", but does describe the centers of successive release versions of physical space-time quite nicely.
Around @18 min. It is nonsense to "emerge "spacetime from logic. There is no meaning to such talk, it is gibberish. You need to appreciate the interplay between mathematics (not physics) and Physics.
The notion of a "space" in mathematics is something some philosophers sought to "derive" from pure logic. But I think this is ill-conceived. An abstract "space" is something one *defines*. Whether it is useful or not then depends upon the context one adopts. So in physics one might want spacetime, and show some other abstractions have an equivalent structure, but for physics it is observations that dictate what abstractions are useful, and the more abstract layer one might find to introduce a notion of spacetime is not necessarily a real physical layer.
It is very difficult to discover what the real physical layers are, since we only perceive reality through our sense perceptions and application of logical thought and intuitive thought, which are imperfect. *So difficult* that some say it is impossible and (foolishly,imho) retreat to Idealism, which is a cause of a lot of waste of human minds. I do not think objective science is impossible, it is just very hard. One needs some humility.
I am feeling very strong vibes of 𖥐𖥕𖢑𖡮ꛚ𖠢𖢧𖠢 ꛘꚶ𖢧𖥐𖧥𖨚𖠢 madness wrapped in mathematical rigour. Being formally precise is no guarantor of sanity nor physical verisimilitude.
This smells suspiciously like yet another instance of everyone who knows a lot about subject 𝓧 thinking physics is just 𝓧. Maybe for a change these nerds should contemplate the possibility physicists know a little bit.
That said, the Cat theory is juicy delicious meta-mathematical morsels, regardless of the M-theory ᲇ𝕣⋒𝕚ℼ𝕨☉𝕣⩕𝕤.
The entirety of mathematics is "complete nutcase madness" that humanity has been programmed to accept as true.
My last two posts shows how all of mathematics is in error.
I hope people realize gauge theories (in physics) are already high level abstractions. The gauge freedom is a redundancy, i.e., unphysical. So when n-Cat theorists abstract gauge theory it is an abstraction of an abstraction, very far removed from physics. To get back to Earth with actual physics requires some "decategorification," and quite a significant amount of it, with lots of coffee!
Gauge redundancy is not unimportant, but one must take care in interpreting the information the associated symmetry expresses --- the cosmology or the homotopy type of the moduli space of state configurations. One must then further worry about what the "quantum state" actually is, since in my framework the "state" is still not physics, it is an instruction for a frame transformation. So one needs an even further decategoification alter to get right down to the elementary particle "turtles". I do not think this is very widely appreciated. Most theorists stop once they get to a spinor (a "state"). This is not the correct place to stop, if you want to think about physical ontology.
It is literally not possible for something to come from nothing. If one simply ponders on the statement this is obvious.
And yet people start with something either as small in size as possible and/or something as short in duration as possible and then try to CONVINCE the listener/reader that the statement is resolved.
NO! There is absolutely no way for something to arise from non-existence. Therefore, THE PROBLEM EXISTS WITH THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK UPON WHICH THE STATEMENT IS BASED!
I have identified and rectified the inherent problem. The problem is with the entire concept of "nothing". In short, "nothing" = "unicorn". The realization of such renders all questions about "nothing", irrelevant and impotent. The question is based upon an incorrect concept and is therefore meaningless/nonsensical.
I will be presenting the theory in subsequent posts.
Beautiful
هل هناك ترجمة باللغة العربية
Superpoints in category theory act as fundamental reference states, much like stable coherence nodes in a wave system. Coherence gradients describe how phase structures evolve, and these transitions can be seen as morphisms between superpoints. This suggests that category theory provides a natural framework for modeling structured coherence shifts, transformations between stable reference states. If my reasoning is correct...very interesting either way.
Can we question Urs' humanity here??? 🤣 @16min The "big bang", "wormholes", "black holes", "strange quark", "charm quark", "chromodynamics", &c., and even "TOE", may be jokes, but they are good jokes, hence should be retained by any physicist with a jot of humour in their soul.
It's not what the math says Bijou
You can make space out of light but you can't make light out of space. This means light is fundamental and therefore the super point emerges from the photon field. You should check out my piece on light-time Relativity.
Bonkers? Photons live in a spacetime, not the other way around.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-025-01640-1
Literally making time and space out of light.
No. How on earth do you reach that conclusion?
They need crystals for starters, which are structures in spacetime. In the LR-symmetric Standard Model (say, so a pretty good framework) there is a non-trivial vacuum, and it has no excited photon modes, only zero-dimensional Bogoliubov scalar.
If one can "build" the photon from spacetime topology then I do not need to think the other way around like you imply. One can have regions of spacetime with no propagating photon modes.
Fair enough, they're making space within space so we need all the equipment to do that. My point is however that they are creating space within a field - if you consider the universe is a field... Its space has been created.
I would not say that. The fields are fictional. Wavefunctions are fictions. See Jacab Barandes stuff. Feynman thought so. An accounting tool for working out amplitudes is not fundamental reality, it is a calculation tool.
This'd is easy to see in the Spacetime Algebra framework for QM, which is equivalent to Dirac Theory and Yang-Mills theory spinors, but uses the 16-dimensional graded Clifford algebra for Cl(3,1) —local Minkowski frames. The spinors are then clearly revealed to be transformation instructions acting on the spacetime frame field (local co-moving frame of the *actual* oriented particle).
Bosons (the other fields) are similarly treated in the STA. The generators are just STA multivectors. (With bipartite structure for the gluons.)
My point is that you do not have to believe any of this, but it is perfectly valid and gives you a theory where spacetime is fundamental, and the fields are fictional (and necessary - as accounting tools - if you desire a Hamiltonian time evolution story, see Feynman's Nobel Lecture.)
If you like to insist a field ontology, then it is fine, I guess, but very problematic. Field theories (for QFT) have still not been well defined, except simple unphysical ones, as in TQFT.
Sounds like you're getting closer to the truth about the origin of the simulation multiverse. "Superpoint" doesn't have quite the same majestic ring as "God" or "Messiah", but does describe the centers of successive release versions of physical space-time quite nicely.