Klee Irwin - Not Exactly First Principles
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2020
- Love our work? Help us continue our research by joining our giving circle. Even just $1/month helps us further our cause: quantumgravityresearch.giving...
This is a talk Klee Irwin gave to the QGR staff titled Not Exactly First Principles.
Emergence theory is based on the principle of language, as explained in the paper, The Code-theoretic Axiom. Although, quasicrystals are perhaps the only example of a language that is non-invented and based on mathematical first principles, the programs or add on rules that can be placed on the fundamental code that tells you how to order two or more syntactically legal quasicrystals involve rules that are not implied by mathematical first principles.
Read The Code Theoretic Axiom Here: quantumgravityresearch.org/po...
Love our work and want more content? Please support our mission, even $1/month helps: quantumgravityresearch.giving...
VISIT THE QGR WEBSITE: www.quantumgravityresearch.org
GET TO KNOW QGR’s RESEARCH SCIENTISTS: www.quantumgravityresearch.org...
READ OUR RESEARCH PAPERS & PRESENTATIONS: www.quantumgravityresearch.org...
QGR FACEBOOK: / quantumgravityresearch
QGR TWITTER: emergencetheory?l...
QGR INSTAGRAM: / quantumgravityresearch
KLEE IRWIN'S WEBSITE: www.kleeirwin.com/ - Наука та технологія
Last time i was this early covid was only in china.
Loved this guys. Looking forward to more talks!
Awesome, Thanks For Uploading^^
Thanks so much for watching!
Perhaps the function you are looking for is related to Feigenbaum periodicity generalized to the degrees of freedom in the 'n'-furcation diagram over unique closed symmetric paths in the underlying 'wave' function of the fractal? A way to set the limit to which you would have to integrate (how many steps back you would need to take from any probable state arising from an arbitrary number of possible future iteration states) to arrive at a mapping to the Feigenbaum boundary derived from the periodicity of an initial series of iterations in order to constrain the size of the set of possible future states of the fractal to some minimum finite 'calculable' limit having the same degree of 'ambiguity' of the initial set of iterations? Are there implications in the theory of Ambiguity and the way it relates ZF number theory to the Axiom of Choice? Sort of like counting the number of peaks in a sign wave over some arbitrary irrational interval and being able to estimate the probability distribution of the value of a sine wave to be measured at that interval based on a decomposition of the wave equation derived from your initial measurement of the period of a sine wave within some arbitrary accuracy?
How is everyone at QGR ? Hope you are all doing very well !!
We are doing great! Thank you for asking!
Thank you
What a day
✨🌹✨
In a conversation with my friend yesterday, the question occurred to us: what part of the graviton is the photon? If the graviton really does expand from a point (at the speed of light so the radius of its sphere is r=ct), then the photon or virtual photon has to be the outer edge of the sphere (the expanding surface) and the graviton has to be everything inside of the sphere. Everything inside of the sphere includes the quantum states for the photon, for frequency/wavelength(position)/momentum. When gravitons start to overlap, that causes all these quantum states to overlap, to become spacetime itself.
Subquantum Kinetics is not mysticism. It is providence.
Is there a way to exploit time loops for energy generation?
What do you guys think about all of this recent Wolfram hype ? Is any of it closely related to or applicable to any of your ideas ?
I understand why space / time and matter / energy should be part of 1st principles, but how do you add information and consciousness into this? Info and Cons are emergent properties. Why are they even listed?
Most of this is over my head, but I'll try to help:
One of the axioms they're working with is that energy is a form of information. If we assume that this axiom is wrong, the consequence would be that information wouldn't be limited to the speed of light. Therefore, the axiom is probably correct, since causality seems to dictate that the limit information can move is at light speed.
Another axiom they're working with is that the delayed choice quantum experiment proves that a form of retro-causal time-loops exists in nature. It's not one that humans have figured out how to exploit, but there's evidence of retro-causality in photosynthesis among plant life. Plants seem to exploit the quantum world to optimize their intake of sunlight in order to be maximally efficient.
* * *
So the second axiom I listed is probably correct too, even though it comes perilously close to contradicting the first, it technically doesn't. Retroactive time-loops don't necessarily contradict themselves, in the same way that iterating on a line of code or the grammar of a sentence doesn't necessarily damage its meaning or functionality--more on this later.
The third axiom that I think they're working with is that nature is neither random nor deterministic. There's evidence for this in a newly discovered form of matter known as quasi-crystals. Quasi-crystals have a pattern that repeats non-deterministically, like some kind of naturally occuring machine language. Just like when I said retroactive time loops don't necessarily contradict causality, the quasi-crystal language doesn't ever contradict its grammar, but it does iterate upon it.
* * *
If you accept these axioms, you have to admit that the emergence of conscious observers somewhere in the future of the timeline of the Universe might actually (although, maybe not necessarily) affect their own past, within causality preserving limits. In the same way you can remix or iterate on a line of code or the grammatical structure of a sentence without breaking it.
So that's where the fourth axiom that I think they're working with comes in: If a civilization, Type 4 on the Kardashev Scale, can emerge in the future of space-time, then it would have the power to influence its own past through the collective force of its observations.
* * *
But then I also forgot to mention that the latest evidence among particle physicists suggests that space-time is emergent its damnself. This was a lot of typing.
An expanding sphere type of graviton has causality built into it. Any event that happens at a point will influence the gravitons that are emerging from that point. This permits gravity to be updated at the speed of light by these (r=ct) gravitons.
Hey guys, did you reach out to Stephan Wolfram? You should definitely team up
They have interface with one another
I don't feel qualified to even leave a comment about what is being discussed. However, If the subject is quantum gravity, then I have to argue that the purpose of this research is to figure out how to build a machine that can curve spacetime (without using the unavailable amounts of mass and energy that is required by the Einstein equations). I actually have an idea for an experiment that can be done with more or less available components, and established physics. It involves a simplification and a guess (or hypothesis). I hypothesize that the graviton really does exist, and it has certain properties that allow it to behave like spacetime. It would act as measuring stick, clock. It would have to have physics constants like c and h built into it; by that I mean that it would begin it's existence as a point and expand outward at the speed of light, like a sphere of increasing radius. If one were to throw a rock into a still pond and create waves that ripple outward, it would be incorrect to think that the pond water is made out of ripples because we know of course that the pond is made out of water molecules mixed with other things. But in the case of the graviton that I am describing, where the graviton is like the ripple on the pond, spacetime really is made of these gravitons and the gravitons can be captured. In face, I am arguing that the quantum entanglement between two particles is in fact a graviton. If I were right, and a graviton could be captured by entangling two photons for example, then the entanglement could be made to store gravitational potential energy, like a gravity-battery.
I think I know where your going with this.
We are living in the Matrix.
Correct me if I'm wrong. You are also looking for a way to get rid of time as a quotent?
I believe time is not relevant in the universe. Only in concousness.
@@michaelelbert5798 Belief has no place in science.
@@DennisKwasnycia thanks for your reply.😇
Euclides, Pitágoras, Fibonacci...