If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide
by the Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Order posts by:*

*Display:*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Anonymous**: *on* 3/31/22 at 0:48am UTC, wrote other essays https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3127

**adel sadeq**: *on* 3/30/22 at 22:57pm UTC, wrote Hi Dr. Gerard Rinkus, I skimmed over you essay about...

**Gerard Rinkus**: *on* 8/5/21 at 13:17pm UTC, wrote Hi Lloyd, I have not considered those things. I'm wondering if your use...

**lloyd johnson**: *on* 8/3/21 at 12:38pm UTC, wrote Hello Sir, since this is a set theory formulation, have you considered...

**Thomas Ray**: *on* 8/2/21 at 15:59pm UTC, wrote Hi Rod, You wrote "Regarding your quote from your paper, I think I agree...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 8/2/21 at 11:06am UTC, wrote Hi Lorraine, Lol I don t see you like a pest but like a rebel against the...

**Lorraine Ford**: *on* 8/2/21 at 1:46am UTC, wrote Steve, I’m sorry to be such a pest. I’m laughing to myself when I...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 7/31/21 at 10:33am UTC, wrote You know Lorraine, Personally I am a nice guy and I am going to tell you an...

FQXi FORUM

August 14, 2022

Thank you to Dr. Gerard Rinkus for suggesting we open a discussion of their recent essay A Physical Theory Based On Sets, Not Vectors.

Abstract:

This essay questions what is perhaps the most fundamental assumption of quantum theory, which is that states should be represented as vectors in a Hilbert space. As the essay explains, an alternative formalism is possible in which states (and indirectly any higher-level particles observed to be part of the states) are represented as sets, specifically, as extremely sparse sets of fundamental units of far smaller scale than any particles of the Standard Model. This physical theory is borrowed over from an information-processing theory. The connections between the original information processing theory, Sparsey, and my proposed physical theory are further elaborated in an earlier essay, The Classical Realization of Quantum Parallelism.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

Abstract:

This essay questions what is perhaps the most fundamental assumption of quantum theory, which is that states should be represented as vectors in a Hilbert space. As the essay explains, an alternative formalism is possible in which states (and indirectly any higher-level particles observed to be part of the states) are represented as sets, specifically, as extremely sparse sets of fundamental units of far smaller scale than any particles of the Standard Model. This physical theory is borrowed over from an information-processing theory. The connections between the original information processing theory, Sparsey, and my proposed physical theory are further elaborated in an earlier essay, The Classical Realization of Quantum Parallelism.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

Hi , This work is very intriguing, innovative and interesting because it is general and new. I am interested in this generality due to fact that it considers codes and sets.I will ask some questions because it can be correlated with the 3 ethers and the superfluidity in my model. Congrats ,

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

This physical theory is borrowed over from an information-processing theory.

What name does it have?

Ulla Mattfolk

report post as inappropriate

What name does it have?

Ulla Mattfolk

report post as inappropriate

Happy to see you on FQXi Ulla, Like I told you the works of Dr Rinkus are innovative and relevant. I d be curious to have your critics ,regards

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

An important link between information processing and cognizance. I agree with the set theory foundation (see attachment). If we introduce the identity, time = information, does that not bind states to a time parameter that obviates superposition of states?

Just thinking out loud.

report post as inappropriate

Just thinking out loud.

report post as inappropriate

happy to see you again on FQXi, I agree also about his set theory wich is very relevant , the time, the information and the states with the numbers, I was intrigued by this work innovative for me .Regards

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Tom, I don't understand what it would mean to say time = information. I realize that you and many others here have been thinking a lot about questions like these and much for a long time, so I probably need to be educated as to what equating time and information would mean, formally and physically.

That said, let me just say, that for me, time is discrete and the state of what I call a corpuscle is updated in one time step. There are lot of fundamental operations that constitute that update (in the information processing version of the theory, this is Sparsey's Code Selection Algorithm, which involves all units computing their input summations, and then a couple more simple operations, but all of which has constant time complexity), but in the physical realm, the execution time for all of those operations (most of which occur simultaneously in parallel) determines the length of that discrete time step. Of course, it doesn't even really make sense to talk about the "length" of that time step. It's just the update rate of state. I haven't thought at all about how this would relate to time in relativity theory.

report post as inappropriate

That said, let me just say, that for me, time is discrete and the state of what I call a corpuscle is updated in one time step. There are lot of fundamental operations that constitute that update (in the information processing version of the theory, this is Sparsey's Code Selection Algorithm, which involves all units computing their input summations, and then a couple more simple operations, but all of which has constant time complexity), but in the physical realm, the execution time for all of those operations (most of which occur simultaneously in parallel) determines the length of that discrete time step. Of course, it doesn't even really make sense to talk about the "length" of that time step. It's just the update rate of state. I haven't thought at all about how this would relate to time in relativity theory.

report post as inappropriate

Hello, yes indeed I don t understand too why time =information. First of all we don t know really what is an information in its pure meaning and what is its origin. Of course we have invented our computers with the binar systems and the algorythms and boolean algebras, but it is our invention, it is not really how acts this universe. The informations of this universe are still beyond our understand , the same for the foundamental objects and the philosophical origin of the universe, we don t know if the fields, the GR and the strings are the key or if we must consider particles in a superfluidity and maybe my spheres. For the time, it is in function of changes and motions like with the quaternions and the rotations become relevant but there still we are linmited philosophically and ontologically. Maybe the confusion about this time is due to this GR and we complicate a thing simple. It is a paramter like the charge, the lenght, the mass, a scalar, we measure it simply and the evolution seems essential to encircle this time. But I don t see why we must consider it with the informations like = ??? if you coulod develop generally this idea and with the correlated works, it could be interesting , we could see what you mean exactly Tom, Regards

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Trying to make the point that if sets are real, i.e., physical, superpositions are not. If superpositions are real, physical sets are not. After reading a little way into the most recent essay, I realized I have to get grounded in the 2015 essay and up. Working my way through. Great reading.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326066949_M

easuring_the_Complexity_of_SImplicity

report post as inappropriate

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326066949_M

easuring_the_Complexity_of_SImplicity

report post as inappropriate

the good works in logic and intepretations must converge like the born rule, the manyworlds, the qbism, the copenaghian interpretation, the relational QM. So ll good extrapolations converge but the real big questions are about what are the foundamental mathematical and phyaical bjects and what is the philosophical origin of the universe. Furthermore we come from fields or particles in a superfluidity? Must we consider only the GR and photons and the strings oscillating vibrating to explain our topologies, geometries or must we consider deeper logic added like this dark matter and dark energy and must we consider particles coded in a superfluidity instead of fields ? we don t know in fact .

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I have remarked that there is like a crisis inside the theoretical sciences community, many consider only this GR and photons and after points or strings at this planck scale oscillating connected with a 1D cosmic field of the GR. And with the geometricql algebras like hopf, clifford,Lie they try to explain with extradiemnsions the topologies, geometries, properties of matters. But all this is a philosophical assumption. That is why I like this idea with the sets instead of vectors. That changes. I ask me if I can converge with my spherical geometrical topological algebras that I have invented with the 3D spheres , 3 ethers and the non associativity and non commutativity for the subgroups. I beleive that yes.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

ps , the work of the Dr Rinkus can be applied with relevance for the AI and if the free will is considered , I believe that it was Ian Durham who has made a good work about the free will, that can give roads relevant about the microtubules to reach maybe , I tell maybe , the consciousness if my 3 series primoridal of 3D spheres are on the good road.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dr Rinkus, like I am very curious lol I d like to know your general philsophy. So here are my questions .

What is for your the philosophical origin of the universe , do you consider a kind of creator and coder transforming the energy ? or do you consider a mathematical accident from a kind of infinite heat for example or others ?

2 what is for you the main essence of this universe, do you consider only this general relativity and the photonic spacetime and so the fields, is it so your idea with fields at this planck scale ?

3 What is for you a particle, do you consider points, sets with numbers with this planck scale and from what and why ? or strings or others and extradiemnsions and why ?

4 What are your ideas about the dark energy and dark matter, do you consider for example a modification of the newtoniam mechanics for this matter non baryonic ? and for the DE what is it for you this anti gravitational push ?

5 About the consciousness, what is its main philosophical origin, it is a little bit correlated with the question above, why we think, why we observe, why we exist and from what , is it due to particles or sets encoded and in complexification having creatyed the brains for example ?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

What is for your the philosophical origin of the universe , do you consider a kind of creator and coder transforming the energy ? or do you consider a mathematical accident from a kind of infinite heat for example or others ?

2 what is for you the main essence of this universe, do you consider only this general relativity and the photonic spacetime and so the fields, is it so your idea with fields at this planck scale ?

3 What is for you a particle, do you consider points, sets with numbers with this planck scale and from what and why ? or strings or others and extradiemnsions and why ?

4 What are your ideas about the dark energy and dark matter, do you consider for example a modification of the newtoniam mechanics for this matter non baryonic ? and for the DE what is it for you this anti gravitational push ?

5 About the consciousness, what is its main philosophical origin, it is a little bit correlated with the question above, why we think, why we observe, why we exist and from what , is it due to particles or sets encoded and in complexification having creatyed the brains for example ?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Hi Steve, Thanks for all the questions.

1. I haven't spent much time thinking about how universe started. All I know is somehow, I'm here, and don't know how I got here :)

2. I'm no expert on relativity. As for essence, I guess my working assumption is consistent with the essay, i.e., that there is ONE underlying "field", the planckons, partitioned into the corpuscles (tiles),...

view entire post

1. I haven't spent much time thinking about how universe started. All I know is somehow, I'm here, and don't know how I got here :)

2. I'm no expert on relativity. As for essence, I guess my working assumption is consistent with the essay, i.e., that there is ONE underlying "field", the planckons, partitioned into the corpuscles (tiles),...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for explaining Dr Rinkus, Like I told you, I like your general idea. I have my onw assumptions also about the particles, the fermions, bosons and why they have their properties. Like I said I work my theory of spherisation, in a simplistic resume it is an evolution optimisation of the universal sphere or future sphere with 3D quantum and cosmological spheres. I considered in the past only...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dr Rinkus, I beleive that you could insider in your sets the boolean algebras also to differenciate the elements and to rank the sortings, synchros, superimposings,an other tool also could be the E8 exceptional group of Lie. And if we have a conjecture between the fields and particles, and the spheres and strings more the 3D and extradiemnsions, all this become relevant with the poincare conjecture and the synplectomorphisms preserving the volumes and permitting the deformations of 3D spheres instead of a ricci flow from the fields. If you correlate all this with your sets and the Spheres and the 3 ethers that I explained, it is revolutionary.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Steve, I really am not familiar enough with some of the terms you mention, e.g., E8, Ricci, deformation of spheres, to intelligently comment. Maybe if you keep you posts more pointed, it would help. Also, Steve, no offense, but ya gotta spell check :) -Rod

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi , Don t worry , I know that I must verify before posting lol I write too quickly without rereading . I understand also that thesetools in physics or maths are not known by all thinkers but I can affirm you that if you study the E8 exceptional group of Lie, and that you consider a deeper general philosophy about the transformations matter energy , so it can improve your model. Because you consider the planck scale and it is an assumption and so the codes of this reality and its topologies, geometries, matters, fields must have a philosophy general. The sets in resume must come from something, the general relativity or others like the DM and DE added, but they must be considered. If you consider for example these sets and partitions of numbers, so that can be correlated with the fields for example of our standard model and the fields of the GR, and it is there that the lie groups are important, they are the basis of the standard model actually. So the corpuscules like you tell and the planckons must be defined philosophically, ontologically, mathematically and physically. What are really these planckons ? points connected with the one field ? what is the origin of this one field ? and how emerge the geometries and topologies more the properties of matters ? I like your general idea and like all relevant idea, that can be improved in adding the rational relevant works and interpretations, Regards

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Steve, I agree that GR, relativity, DE and DM must be considered. I'm just not there yet.

I take my planckon "field" as given a priori. I have no explanation for its origin. Also, my base (unexplained so far) assumptions are:

1. The size of the subsets that become active in a corpuscle's fermionic partition, Q. In my info theory, Q is parameter. In principle it can vary from one...

view entire post

I take my planckon "field" as given a priori. I have no explanation for its origin. Also, my base (unexplained so far) assumptions are:

1. The size of the subsets that become active in a corpuscle's fermionic partition, Q. In my info theory, Q is parameter. In principle it can vary from one...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Nonlinear time. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353495811_Dynamic_s

pacetime_imposes_matter-wave_continuity

report post as inappropriate

pacetime_imposes_matter-wave_continuity

report post as inappropriate

Hi Tom, Steve,

I've just come across what is for me a new concept, quasiparticles, and in particular, fractons, described in two recent Quanta articles. I was immediately intrigued to read that the fractons do not move, though composites of them can move in sub-manifolds (of the overall space). I think that there may be a connection between my set-based formalism and fractons and have reached out to those mentioned in this article (https://www.quantamagazine.org/fractons-the-weirdest-matter

-could-yield-quantum-clues-20210726/?utm_source=pocket-newta

b), in particular, the authors of this paper (https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.2

35136). I'm trying to work through this paper and am getting some glimpses of the analogies between their model and mine. It seems that they are extending the existing vector-based formalism of QT to describe these fractional particles, whereas I may have an alternate (set-based) formalism that might be able to describe the phenomena. We'll see.

BTW, Tom, I tried to read your paper. That's actually kind of hard for me. I'd need close help to understand it.

report post as inappropriate

I've just come across what is for me a new concept, quasiparticles, and in particular, fractons, described in two recent Quanta articles. I was immediately intrigued to read that the fractons do not move, though composites of them can move in sub-manifolds (of the overall space). I think that there may be a connection between my set-based formalism and fractons and have reached out to those mentioned in this article (https://www.quantamagazine.org/fractons-the-weirdest-matter

-could-yield-quantum-clues-20210726/?utm_source=pocket-newta

b), in particular, the authors of this paper (https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.2

35136). I'm trying to work through this paper and am getting some glimpses of the analogies between their model and mine. It seems that they are extending the existing vector-based formalism of QT to describe these fractional particles, whereas I may have an alternate (set-based) formalism that might be able to describe the phenomena. We'll see.

BTW, Tom, I tried to read your paper. That's actually kind of hard for me. I'd need close help to understand it.

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the links, Rod.

If you follow the Quanta article, you can follow my paper--that's what I mean by radiation without annihilation.

Fractons--stable, motionless--can actually be described by a soliton standing wave. Quoting from the article: "To see what’s so exceptional about fracton phases, consider a more typical particle, such as an electron, moving freely through a...

view entire post

If you follow the Quanta article, you can follow my paper--that's what I mean by radiation without annihilation.

Fractons--stable, motionless--can actually be described by a soliton standing wave. Quoting from the article: "To see what’s so exceptional about fracton phases, consider a more typical particle, such as an electron, moving freely through a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Tom,

Well I've read through a good bit of the fracton paper. I get some things, but I definitely need to get more background in the basics of TQFT to fully understand it. Nevertheless, I do suspect a deep connection. Even just the idea of fractional charge suggests to me a set-based underpinning. In my terms, the fermionic state, X, of a corpuscle is a set of Q active...

view entire post

Well I've read through a good bit of the fracton paper. I get some things, but I definitely need to get more background in the basics of TQFT to fully understand it. Nevertheless, I do suspect a deep connection. Even just the idea of fractional charge suggests to me a set-based underpinning. In my terms, the fermionic state, X, of a corpuscle is a set of Q active...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Rod,

I don't hold myself out as an expert in quantum theory. I've got all three Steven Weinberg (RIP) books on quantum field theory, and haven't cracked one yet. I should read now to honor his memory, but at my age, that's a promise I can't keep.

I do know a little topology, though. So when Ed Witten came up with TQFT, I walked in through the back door. So I believe your...

view entire post

I don't hold myself out as an expert in quantum theory. I've got all three Steven Weinberg (RIP) books on quantum field theory, and haven't cracked one yet. I should read now to honor his memory, but at my age, that's a promise I can't keep.

I do know a little topology, though. So when Ed Witten came up with TQFT, I walked in through the back door. So I believe your...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

Re Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2021 @ 12:34 GMT:

Why am I a critic of the ideas of (male dominated) physics and a critic of the ideas of (male dominated) computer nerds? Because, unlike you and Tom and others, I actually DID study physics, maths and information (computer) science at university for 3 years, receiving a high distinction for one of my maths subjects, and I was a computer analyst and programmer for more than 20 years. Unlike some others, I am not an uncritical follower.

report post as inappropriate

Re Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2021 @ 12:34 GMT:

Why am I a critic of the ideas of (male dominated) physics and a critic of the ideas of (male dominated) computer nerds? Because, unlike you and Tom and others, I actually DID study physics, maths and information (computer) science at university for 3 years, receiving a high distinction for one of my maths subjects, and I was a computer analyst and programmer for more than 20 years. Unlike some others, I am not an uncritical follower.

report post as inappropriate

And Steve,

I might add that there is only one, ONE, thing you need to know about the world: is the world such that people genuinely make a difference to the world (i.e. is the world such that people change the numbers for the variables) or not? And clearly, people DO change the numbers for the variables.

report post as inappropriate

I might add that there is only one, ONE, thing you need to know about the world: is the world such that people genuinely make a difference to the world (i.e. is the world such that people change the numbers for the variables) or not? And clearly, people DO change the numbers for the variables.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine, you seem to have a problem of competition with the males and the others also , and you don t know better the maths and physics, unlike you, me I have studied in details the maths and physics and I see the generality, you apparentely no simply, you repeat the same things still and always with the variables, we have understood about the changes. Try to go farer and discuss the other threads with more logic and generality, thanks for your understanding. It is not because you have studied at university the physics that you are a gnereal innovative thinker simply, I dont want to offense but for me it lacks many things to study for you.Ps

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Ps I was at university and I study all days the maths and physics of the best papers of best thinkers,don t try lorraine, try to be less vanitious and frustrated please

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Rod,

You wrote "Regarding your quote from your paper, I think I agree with you and Einstein and Minkowski about not seeing space or time as physical quantities. But what do you mean by "..grows and decays locally as a function of its global topology"? I realize the answer might be long."

Not too long, though I hope, satisfactory:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353644

476_6_april_2017

Regards,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

You wrote "Regarding your quote from your paper, I think I agree with you and Einstein and Minkowski about not seeing space or time as physical quantities. But what do you mean by "..grows and decays locally as a function of its global topology"? I realize the answer might be long."

Not too long, though I hope, satisfactory:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353644

476_6_april_2017

Regards,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Hello Sir, since this is a set theory formulation, have you considered ‘tearing’ or ‘stretching’? It seems to me that stretching might equate to Special Relativity. And tearing might equate with acceleration. Thanks

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Lloyd,

I have not considered those things. I'm wondering if your use of the word 'sets' here is that used in topology, i.e., where the sets are (I think) generally of 'points' in an underlying geometric space. In that scenario, I suppose such sets are generally of infinite cardinality (not sure). Anyway, my (sub)sets are over finite-sized sets (of binary elements). Specifically, the fermionic state of a corpuscle is a set of Q (e.g., 10^6) Planck-size fermion-planckons, chosen from a much larger ('master') set, e.g., 10^10 fermion-planckons. Moreover, there is no spatial ordering (topology) over that master set: they are just an unordered collection of elements. So in this case, I'm not sure 'tearing' and 'stretching' apply in the way you may intend. I have developing ideas on acceleration (and thus, I suppose on SR), that I hope to share at some point, but not ready yet. As described in the essay, in my theory, the notion of space itself (thus, the kind of of geometric space underlying a topological space) is emergent: specifically, the space, i.e., its dimensionality and its valuedness on each dimension emerges in the patterns of intersection over the sets (each of which represents a particular state).

Thanks

Rod

report post as inappropriate

I have not considered those things. I'm wondering if your use of the word 'sets' here is that used in topology, i.e., where the sets are (I think) generally of 'points' in an underlying geometric space. In that scenario, I suppose such sets are generally of infinite cardinality (not sure). Anyway, my (sub)sets are over finite-sized sets (of binary elements). Specifically, the fermionic state of a corpuscle is a set of Q (e.g., 10^6) Planck-size fermion-planckons, chosen from a much larger ('master') set, e.g., 10^10 fermion-planckons. Moreover, there is no spatial ordering (topology) over that master set: they are just an unordered collection of elements. So in this case, I'm not sure 'tearing' and 'stretching' apply in the way you may intend. I have developing ideas on acceleration (and thus, I suppose on SR), that I hope to share at some point, but not ready yet. As described in the essay, in my theory, the notion of space itself (thus, the kind of of geometric space underlying a topological space) is emergent: specifically, the space, i.e., its dimensionality and its valuedness on each dimension emerges in the patterns of intersection over the sets (each of which represents a particular state).

Thanks

Rod

report post as inappropriate

Hi Dr. Gerard Rinkus,

I skimmed over you essay about set theory as a basis for a physical theory and found it to be interesting. As a matter of fact your idea is very similar to mine but mine is more direct and its easy get results with simple calculations that match QM/QFT in a a very simple way. As I have always thought that my idea can be formulated in many other mathematical formalisms , one of which I was hoping to be set theory which I thought is very natural. So Please skim over my essays and see how much similarity there is. Thanks.

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2451

https://ww

w.reality-theory.net/

you can run the simple modifiable JavaScript programs to confirm some of the results

https://www.reality-theory.net/a.htm

report post as inappropriate

I skimmed over you essay about set theory as a basis for a physical theory and found it to be interesting. As a matter of fact your idea is very similar to mine but mine is more direct and its easy get results with simple calculations that match QM/QFT in a a very simple way. As I have always thought that my idea can be formulated in many other mathematical formalisms , one of which I was hoping to be set theory which I thought is very natural. So Please skim over my essays and see how much similarity there is. Thanks.

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2451

https://ww

w.reality-theory.net/

you can run the simple modifiable JavaScript programs to confirm some of the results

https://www.reality-theory.net/a.htm

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.