Search FQXi

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 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.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

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

 RSS feed | RSS help

Steve Dufourny: on 7/24/21 at 11:01am UTC, wrote Dr Rinkus, I beleive that you could insider in your sets the boolean...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/23/21 at 18:06pm UTC, wrote Dr Rinkus, like I am very curious lol I d like to know your general...

Gerard Rinkus: on 7/23/21 at 16:20pm UTC, wrote Tom, Ok, good to clarify our defs of superposition. And thanks for...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/23/21 at 14:24pm UTC, wrote Tom,the people does not knowm but we were the first to write on fqxi many...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/23/21 at 14:13pm UTC, wrote I am happy that you are on FQXi again Tom, take care

Thomas Ray: on 7/23/21 at 13:54pm UTC, wrote Steve, I want to say hello and best regards to you. I can't afford the...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/23/21 at 13:15pm UTC, wrote It is there dear Dr Rinkus that your sets become relevant in ranking all...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/23/21 at 12:41pm UTC, wrote The real relevance of this space vacuum of the DE is that it solves the...

July 26, 2021

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: A Physical Theory based on Sets, Not Vectors [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Joe Schindler wrote on Jul. 19, 2021 @ 18:07 GMT
Thank you to Dr. Gerard Rinkus for suggesting we open a discussion of their recent essay A Physical Theory Based On Sets, Not Vectors.


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.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 19, 2021 @ 21:39 GMT
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 ,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Gerard John Rinkus replied on Jul. 20, 2021 @ 14:28 GMT
Thanks Steve, looking forward to your questions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 21, 2021 @ 17:03 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 21, 2021 @ 17:14 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gerard John Rinkus replied on Jul. 21, 2021 @ 18:40 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 22, 2021 @ 10:50 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 21, 2021 @ 17:15 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 21, 2021 @ 17:27 GMT
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 .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 21, 2021 @ 17:31 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 21, 2021 @ 17:39 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 23, 2021 @ 18:06 GMT
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 ?


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 24, 2021 @ 11:01 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.