Null theory is ultimately about making the most minimal claim ( nothing conceptually exists ) and subjecting it to the most simplest rule for growth ( A->AB, B->A : the fibonacci substitution ). That's it. I'm literally claiming nothing then picking the first rule that shows up and does anything non-trivial. What would physics look like if they had to be constrained to this rule?Well, it turns out it looks a lot like our physics. One of the core principles is that the behavior of fibonacci words ( and phi in general ) project upwards i.e. ABAABABA => no B's Touch => B-Repulsion => basis for causality and motion. the give of A/AA is a spatial basis.its about reducing complex phenomena to their simple origin or its vice versa, to navigate to complex phenomena through simple origin.The Theory of Nothing-v3.pdf has the complete derivation chain from O to CC/H, newtonian, relativity, etc. It goes over the connection and generation of the platonics and the gauge groups, introduction of 3+1d space/time, the natural and digital numbers, 3 independent routes of derivation that converge on the same thing, etc. All as forced actions. Its a discrete combinatorial with no parameters... There's no continuous number I could fudge even if I wanted to.This zenodo has the 3d hopfion viewer + orbital mechanics from first principles (along with the master kernel which produces all observables) https://zenodo.org/records/20349584?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6IjY2NGZkMTg2LWNkNDctNGFjMi1iMzE0LWEyM2JiZDgzMTJkMiIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiI4MGE1ZTczMzgyM2RiMTc0ODJmNzFlZmE2ODgwNGRmNyJ9.PNzWZrBLwiI7dnGhw2XAGmkXar9v3Mdd5SOLXmuypjAa1DITgXNte9rTc-Pn3UZXXTZHJC8OBFoML-xJ_DWKvg
I'm not sure how to attach a .pdf but you'll find everything from that link. Here is a picture of the doubly twisted hopfion encoded with fib words from the side, it looks just like the EM field including the asymmetry
for those who have ever seen the ferrocell, this is what the ferrocell is replicating. The toy is just an HTML file that you open up in your browser.
>>16984111>most simplest rule for growth>fibonacci substitutionIn what way?>>16984115>>16984122There's many ways to construct a toroid, anon.
>>16984123The answer is uniqueness, minimality, and primitivitythis is gone over in subsection : The Fibonacci substitution as the minimal primitive endomorphismgoes over the proof for uniqueness, minimality, and primitivityas for the toroid construction, the doubly twisted hopfion perfectly encodes the fibonacci substitution, its the most minimal and primitive geometric built on the most minimal and primitive combinatoric...There's infinite potential in the void, so you can always say oh there's this rule or there's that rule or you can construct a toroid an infinite number of waysI'm saying what's provably the most primitive and minimal
>>16984132>goes over the proof for uniqueness, minimality, and primitivityExplain your proof in as plain english as possible. Nobody's going to critique an entire essay that appears, on the face of it, to be schizo babble. Jargon and arbitrary redefinitions do not make your case sound more compelling.
>>16984140okay there is no more minimal claim than1.null-setfeel free to contest.2. null-set implies {null-set} , distinction from nothingnesstwo symbols allow you to encode any and all information.This is infinite information potential.a translation is simplest rulelets go thru all the simplest rules for the two letter alphabet we now have to see what grows first , what's interesting[00][00][10][00][11][00][10][01]are all boring and do nothing interesting. They don't encode any information[11][10]is our first one that does anything interesting, its the fibonacci matrix.that's all we are doing, we are following the provably minimal claim and simplest rules and seeing what physics falls out. If you manage to find anything simpler let me know lol
>>16984151Define "interesting."In what way is this fibonacci matrix more simple than an increment?
basically the void has the highest gradient (infinite information potential) and that information cannot entropically flow through[00][00][10][00][11][00][10][01]because they do not encode any information[11][10]is the simplest matrix that encodes the most information. Its about entropy reduction. The gradient has no choice but to flow thru the fibonacci matrix because any higher projection i.e. 3x3 4x4 matrix would require more symbols which would be less entropically minimal.
>>16984154the increment is asymmetrical, aperiodic yet ordered. its maximally stable, most irrational, recursive, hierarchical, self-referential, has a rich internal algebra that is used to build and project everything else. the fibonacci matrix 2x2 has those features while the other 2x2's do not.
>>16984158like the geometric primitive is highly asymmetric yet deeply ordered, here you can see that a bit more clearly with a low hopf fibre soliton
>>16984155>they do not encode any information>the simplest matrix that encodes the most informationAre you using an operating definition of "information" here? All of those Matrices encode the same exact amount of information by any standard mathematical use of the term.>>16984158Sure, so within a 2x2, an increment and a fibonacci substitution are identical. But you choose to extend the projection via fibonacci rather than a simple increment. Why?
>>16984111An individual is in between to continually refresh to the outside. This includes God.
>>16984173see, you introduce a 'simple' increment, . You are taking the increment for granted as if its just there.What are you incrementing things by? How did you decide on your increment? you only have two symbols. Where did you get an increment? We haven't even gotten into digital projection or the natural numbers.[11][10]has an internal algebra, the others don't.like get a piece of scratch paper and go thru all the 2 letter rulesA->AB, B->AAABABAABAABABAABABAABAABABAABAAB...the only one that has non-trivial growth.Again, I don't choose, I can't choose. I am picking the only available option. The only thing that causes increments in the first place is phi.Like that's the point, I don't have anything else to work with. I am making the most minimal claim and following the first available rule, it's that simple
>>16984111>null theoryLiteral retarded word salad garbage for a simple logic assumption
>>16984195An increment doesn't even need two letters. A unary counting scheme would be:AAAAAAand so on. Why must a two letter scheme even exist?
how can I obtain the number π from the null claim and the fibonacci substitution?
>>16984207find me a kernel that is simpler and more accurate, nut up or shut up. ur too fucking dumb to realize the absolute gem you've stumbled upon
>>16984217>accurateI would like to see you derive a single law from this system where the derivation isn't "it kinda has a similar shape on a glorified graphing calculator."
>>16984210okay, completely trivial growth, encodes no information. Each spot is an A, no distinction, no algebra. I know whats in the fifth spot, I know what's in the billionth spot. I have full omniscience of that sequence because its so empty of informationWhat can I do with an endless string of A's? There's no rules or algebra to be hadWhy must a two letter scheme exist? We assumed null-set. If we assume null-set, {null-set} follows. Assuming null-set forces a two-letter alphabet.Goes back to finding a more minimal claim than null-set. If you got something more minimal than null-set let me know. a two letter alphabet is just what comes with making the most minimal claim.
>>16984219hey dumbass e=mc^2 , newtons inverse-square law, newtons 3 laws, lorentz invariance, etc. all fall out as theoremsso if you'd like to see that open the paper its what its there forDid you even look at how crisp and clean the orbitals are in the hopfion viewer?y'all seriously have no idea what I made lol
>>16984217>umm I need to invone da null hypotenuse to correlate whether or not the kick in my nuts is what caused my testicular explosionstfu nigga
>>16984235yeah u sound like a faggot
>>16984229>trivial growthIf by "trivial" you mean "simple," then yes. It explicitly outcompetes your growth scheme in that regard. Either you regard simplicity as a feature of your system or you don't.>encodes no informationFalse. The number of units is the information.But let's play with your 2 letter scheme for a moment:AABAAABBABAAABAAAABBBThat's what a standard increment looks like in a binary system.>hey dumbass e=mc^2 , newtons inverse-square law, newtons 3 laws, lorentz invariance, etc. all fall out as theoremsProvide one example.>Did you even look at how crisp and clean the orbitals are in the hopfion viewer?I don't care how they look. Show me a derivation of the laws
>>16984238how does it outcompete? it doesn't lead anywhere. the fibonacci substitution is the simplest rule that encodes the most information. Your rule is simple, it doesn't encode shit though>False. The number of units is the informationso creating a binary register is actually much more complicated of a rule than a substitution rule>Provide one example.Mate those are all examples lol>I don't care how they look. Show me a derivation of the lawsI posted the derivation for the laws. It's in the OP. I can't force you to look at it lol.
>>16984255What do you even mean by "information" in this context?>False. The number of units is the information>so creating a binary register is actually much more complicated of a rule than a substitution ruleHow does the second statement follow from the first?>Mate those are all examples lolWhat I'm asking of you is to show how you derive one of these things. Show us your most elementary derivation of any observable phenomenon here. Don't expect others to do the legwork for you of parsing out the unclearly defined jargon that makes up your "paper." It's on you to show how this postulate results in anything observable at all.
>>16984269>What do you even mean by "information" in this contextits a sturmian word that's most primitive and most minimal like I told you at the beginning. Don't shit on me when I give you accurate answers then say its jargon and at the same time ask me to derive things for you>How does the second statement follow from the first?I'm saying look for the simplest rule that first leads to growthYou choose a complicated rule, it already failed the prerequisites>What I'm asking of you is to show how you derive one of these things.mate im gonna be real with you, ur having trouble understanding information density, primitivity and minimality in part I and ur asking for stuff in Part XX. you understand what I'm saying when I say this right? You are arguing with me over the simple proven stuff. You shat on me when I pointed out where it was proven. You are still arguing over the simple proven stuff.SO why would I proceed any further? What would be the point of showing you anything when you behave like that?The derivation is in there if you want it, that's the entire point of a paper. It is on me to show how that single axiom results in anything, and I DID.
>>16984293>its a sturmian word that's most primitive and most minimal like I told you at the beginningSure sure. What do you mean by "information." You certainly don't mean it in any standerd mathematical sense (eg. Shannon entropy) or are very explicitly misapplying it as shown earlier with your ramblings about matrices. >>16984293>You choose a complicated ruleHow is a binary counter "more complicated" than your fibonacci operator?>ur having trouble understandingNo. I am very explicitly accusing you of selectively redefining or misapplying the terms you're using.>why would I proceed any further?Idk man, you made the thread.
>>16984300>How is a binary counter "more complicated" than your fibonacci operator?Are you claiming it isn't? prove it to me then.define the rules for your binary counter in a way that is simpler than A turns into AB, B turns into A at each stepyou really are taking so much for granted
>>16984215OP can you answer?
>>16984303>A turns into AB, B turns into A at each stepThat's actually the a hilarious irony here. What you described IS the binary counter.AABAAABBThe binary counter overlaps, yours stacks to the right. Both follow the same rule. Both have a rule that is not defined in the terms you provided. You make an implicit assumption and expect others not to notice it.
>>16984307It first shows up in the irrational rotational algebra of A->AB, B->A and its also forced by the fib-mobius parity on S^3 ( which is the continuous version of the discrete steps of phi^2=phi+1 ) I don't have a closed form derivation on pi though, I haven't explored in that direction at all desu.
>>16984316>It first shows up in the irrational rotational algebra of A->AB, B->Ahow so?
>>16984309no its not the same, you've added extra steps. I'm not stacking anything. A is turning into AB, B is turning into A, at every step. No more, no less.I don't know what you are doing, you haven't been able to coherently articulate any rule whatsoever
>>16984318Your terms expand rightward whenever possible. My terms expand rightward only if required. It's the same ruleset otherwise.
>>16984317the math changes over from something that is represented combinatorial to something that can be rotate. Like pi is forced, but its not derived. Its still a transcendental number doing transcendental bs
>>16984330Is your system mot powerful enough to do basic geometry?
>>16984329 I'm not expanding rightward or leftward or anything of that, A is turning into AB, B is turning into A at every stepsounds like ur adding a bunch of rules, and that sounds complicated. Are you sure that rule your making up is simpler than my rule?
>>16984334Look at your series. That expansion is rightward in the text. It could be "truly" expanding whatever direction just as mine is but at that point you're arguing irrelevancies. You don't even realize the assumptions you're making.If we want to be more "rigorous" your transformation involves an assumption of global incrementation (all A's become AB and all B's become A) whereas mine assumes locality (a single term is affected with domino effects on immediately surrounding terms).
>>16984330How are you implementing rotation in this system?
>>16984195>[11]>[10]That's XOR which means I'm not fundamentally opposed, and>everything is distinction via rewriteis at least not>guys I promise it's really still all setsagain. The abstract rewrite representation seems tangled to me by virtue of having to hide that>turns intomust be motivated somehow, which you seem to solve via eagerness and singular application of each rule per step per symvol? Which of A->AB and B->A applies first, and from which side of the string?
>>16984485 (me) >XORRetard
>>16984343bro you don't even have the bandwidth to realize A is just turning into AB and B is just turning into A, at each stepthere is no expanding anything rightward or leftward. Whatever you think you got cooking just isn't it.look, you actually can't make a simpler rule, that's the whole point, its why I linked you that sub-section earlier. It's proven that you can't come up with a simpler rule. not a thing up for debate, I was just trying to demonstrate to you how you can't make a simpler rule but you can't even manage the simplest possible rule so idk what to tell you l0l>>16984438i switch from the cantor set of the fibonacci word into C*-algebra>>16984485all motivating actions come from entropic minimization. Starting with the infinite information potential of the void I'm looking for the simplest thing that can encode informationWater flows downhill, I'm just looking for the channels it goes throughfibonacci substitution is first chosen because of its unique primitivity and minimality (entropic reduction, this is the pipeline where information actually flows)it then goes into the doubly twisted hopfion because it perfectly encodes the fibonacci substitution without any loss of information. It doesn't lose information in the process, therefore its a no entropic action that can be taken, with the added benefit of allowing more storage through holographic projectionLiterally everything is just making the most minimal claim and picking the entropically minimal ruleFor A->AB, B->A, there is no side to the stringA is turning into AB, B is turning into A. You can work forwards, you can work backwards, it does not matterA( A turns into AB)AB( A turns into AB, B turns into A)AB + A = ABA(A turns into AB, B turns into A, A turns into AB)AB+A+AB = ABAABThere are no sides, there is no left to right or right to leftA is turning into AB, B is turning into A, at every step
>>16984589>A is turning into AB, B is turning into A. You can work forwards, you can work backwards, it does not matter>A>( A turns into AB)>AB>( A turns into AB, B turns into A)>AB + A = ABA>(A turns into AB, B turns into A, A turns into AB)>AB+A+AB = ABAAB>There are no sides, there is no left to right or right to left>A is turning into AB, B is turning into A, at every stepOh, OK, yeah I see now that I interpreted an ambiguity into your description that doesn't actually exist as such, thanks for the explanation.
>>16984663yeah its really simple at the end of the day, all of your principles can be derived from phi and fibonacci wordslike for exampleABAABABAABAABif you notice the B's never touch. This is where causality and motion comes from. B-repulsion builds up into entropic minima of the saddlepoints on the hopfion/soliton which leads to the other laws.
>>16984589>bro you don't even have the bandwidth to realize A is just turning into AB and B is just turning into A, at each step"Just" A turning into AB and B "Just" turning into B results in an expansion when interpreted the way you're interpreting it. I know exactly what you're doing. But you're somehow confused when I call out the assumptions involved in your interpretation of that rule. You implicitly assume expansion then repeatedly deny there is any. It's right in front of your face. It's the whole reason you declare it a "growth" rule at all.
>>16984749like ur entire schtick is bad faith braindead retarded attempts at gotcha'sits expanding because of the rule, expansion is not the rule. It's not expanding left ward or right ward (like I said but ur real bad at reading), the sequence itself is expanding. You're adding expansion as part of the rules for your construction in order to mimick the natural expansion that results from A->AB, B->Afind a more minimal claim or a more simpler rule for growth (you can't, provably so) if you got gripes about it. Getting stuck on why this is the simplest rule for growth is a bad look imo
>>16984758>Look at your series. That expansion is rightward in the text.Lets do a small one as demonstration, we will follow the rule from right to left and left to rightABAABwe are following rule left to rightAB + A + AB + AB + A = ABAABABAnow I will do it right to leftAB+A+AB+AB+A = ABAABABAWOW! same thing! There's no leftwards or rightwards expansion! A still turns into AB, B still turns into A, WOW!!!
ABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABA
>>16984758>its expanding because of the rule, expansion is not the rule.The way it expands is assumed.You're acting as if the expansion is the only way it could operate but the binary counter demonstrates otherwise. You assume one additional rule. I remove the assumed rule and impose another.>>16984770>There's no leftwards or rightwards expansion! A still turns into AB, B still turns into A,You're missing the point entirely.See: >>16984343>It could be "truly" expanding whatever direction just as mine is but at that point you're arguing irrelevancies
>>16984782dawg just come up with a simpler rule if you got one stop with ur erroneous pedanticism
>>16984786The unary counter is much simpler but you reject it because of your own pet definition of "information" that doesn't align with any existing mathematical model.The binary counter follows the same exact rule you're using but you assume expansion is mandatory and global while I assume expansion is local and conditional.What you asked for was already provided in multiple ways. You just continue burying your head in the sand because you can't handle the fact that "muh golden ratio" has no special relationship to physics *at all*.
>>16984794you haven't been able to define a rule browatch me do it, watch carefully now"At every step, A turns into AB, B turns into Astarts at A"AABABAABAAB...you haven't been able to make a simpler rule for non-trivial growth ( and you can't, its impossible. Like you are literally trying to argue something that has already been proven ). An endless string of 1 or 0 or it flip flopping is sterile. If I can know everything about the string from its initial rule then its not encoding anything.A->AA tells me everything. I know what happens in the 1,000,000th index. The string at 1 steps is the same information at 1 million steps. It's the same sterile relationship all the way thruLike do you really not see this? Do you really not understand this? Is this you trolling?like just come up with a simpler rule ( you can't )
>>16984794I'm not assuming anything regarding expansion, It's just the natural consequence of the rule. If expansion for you is local and conditional, then mark that down as your rule-set. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
>>16984806but like also think of the physical consequences of your actions this early on.. The fibonacci word already sets expansion as GLOBAL, you are already trying to redefine expansion as LOCALthis is what is wrong with physics bro, everyone is trying to do too much when things already just work..Like what are you going to build a construction that has local expansion and then somehow at the end of derivation you are going to do some conversion to make the expansion of space global again? why not just have it naturally fall out at the beginning?like think about what it is ur actually doing lol
>>16984803>>16984806>>16984833I'll keep this simple for you:Address the local vs global assumption. Your rule assumes the action is applied to all terms in the same way at all times simultaneously. This is an assumption.Justify it.
>>16984836null-set is a subset of all setthere, justified
>>16984749Maybe he's talking about expansion as in the output of iterating the rule in comparison to the input and he thinks something like the Shannon entropy of it grows without bound (which isn't actually true).
>>16984111Of course nothing exists. What do you think a "root" is? In fact, I'll do you one better, what do you think equality is? For two things to be equal, their difference must be nothing. x^2+7x=-7, or x^2+7x+7=0. And these roots are the irreducible elements of all polynomials. Equality is entirely based on the idea that nothingness conceptually exists.
>>16984841Your conclusion does not follow from this statement.
>>16984883you guys really just ought to read theorem 7 and remark 8 and 9like I get it, its a long document, but why even try to discuss it if you don't at least give it a cursory glance. Like... you guys don't have to figure out the "maybe" of what I mean. what I mean is already there.Again I say, if you guys disagree with A->AB, B->A being the most simplest rule for non-trivial growth, feel free to find another rule. If you guys think there's a claim more minimum than null-set, feel free to provide it.>>16984888exactly, that's the point of what I'm saying. I only have to make the most minimal claim ( that nothing conceptually exists) that every else already de facto agrees with, and the entirety of physics falls out. You aren't allowed logic or equality without it.The claim is uncontestable once you really analyze what I did. To deny null theory you have to deny set theory, along with the foundations for everything else.
>>16984907of course it does, you wanted additional reason for why its global, I gave you the reason why its global. Its part of the package that comes with null-set as your axiom, you get infinite information potential and you get null-set globally.again, its getting old, but define a simpler rule if you got one ( you can't and you won't ) you understand? I'm literally asking you to do something simple, it just has to be simpler than what I'm doing. You can't do it. That should really tell u something
>>16984912>I gave you the reason why its global.No. You didn't. It's like if I asked you to prove Jommy stole the cookie from the jar you you asserted "the sky is blue" as proof. It's a complete non-sequitur that has nothing to do with the question asked.>define a simpler rule if you got oneI did with the unary counter. You rejected it with special pleading about your non-standard definition of "information." I gave you an equally simple rule with the binary counter which follows the exact same rule you explicitly defined while not following the rule you implicitly assume.
>>16984908Nah, I'm not reading it, I'm just gonna try to guess what you mean from your word salad ITT.
>>16984908Here's a fun exercise for you: give us a single reason to care. Nobody's going to read theorem 7 of dome shit nobody cares about.You claim all these physical laws naturally arise from this system of yours. Show us how. Show us how fibonacci substitution results in anything observable. Provide your most elementary derivation of any known phenomenon at all. Do so in this thread in plain english.Until you do that, don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously. It's not us being ignorant. It's you failing to make a point.
>>16984925how is it non-sequitur to cite a property of null-set when you are building a rule off of null-set?Are you fucking retarded?>I did with the unary counterNo, you never actually defined the rule, you just said "unary counter". You failed the exercise I was trying to show you because you're too goddam lazy and dumb to go down that path. At best, you showed a pattern without explicitly stating what the rule to generate that pattern is.Feel free to prove my wrong by linking to the defined rule (you can't, you never did)>You rejected it I can't reject what I never received. I'm trying to get you to define your rule so I can clearly demonstrate why it's not as simple as my ruleagain I will show you , watch very carefully maybe you'll get it this time"At every step, {A turns into AB, and B turns into A}Start at A"See how I explicitly defined the rules? See how I can then write the rules symbolically?A->AB, B->AADo you think you could manage to explicitly define the rules for your construction? I know its really really hard to do this but I have faith that you can pull it off, I believe in you!
>>16984589>you actually can't make a simpler rule,Sure you can, A stays A such that A^n+1->....->A^n+infNo B ever appears, now we've taken the rule down from a complexity of 2 to a complexity of 1
>>16984589>i switch from the cantor set of the fibonacci word into C*-algebraGibberish. You are incapable of explaining both how you do this and how you define rotations in a C*-algebra
>>16984955dawg I gave the master kernel , it spits out the observables at 0.063% RMS, everything forced, no parameters. Go to that if ur too lazy for the paper. If you want to know how it works you might try to understand what I'm saying at the very beginning instead of being obtuse and disingenuousLike I'm telling you why unary is trivial and more complicated ( I have told you multiple times) but you remain stuck on it for whatever god awful reasonLike I'm straight up telling you A->AB, B->A is physics itself and you insist on literally the dumbest shit >>16984961my brother, where are you getting n's and + and 1 from? We have two symbols, A and B
>>16984960>a property of null-setHow is the global nature of your rule "a property of the null set?" That's literally the question. >you never actually defined the rule, you just said "unary counter"."Add A to the sequence."That's the rule. That's all there is to it. Nothing needs to "become" anything. Just add A.
>>16984962section 22....
>>16984968Screencap it.
>>16984964>dawg I gave the master kernel , it spits out the observables at 0.063% RMSWow. That sounds really cool. Can you show me?
>>16984967so your saying A->AAand you don't see how that is trivial growth? you're saying that is non-trivial? just a raw string of useless data that contains minimal information. no algebra, no internal structure, just an endless string of 0. fascinating.>>16984970eat my nuts, y'all are real sorry around here>>16984972here's the output script. Go look at the hopfion_viewer.html if you want some real jingly keys
>>16984979>so your saying A->AANo. A isn't "becoming" AA. A is just being appended to the sequence. No transformation is necessary as that's just another bit of complexity you're assuming.>trivialWe've been over this. Either you value simplicity or you don't. The "triviality" is a feature.>contains minimal information.You have not defined "information" in any meaningful way. Exactly the same amount of mathematical information can be encoded with a string of A's as can be encoded with a permutation of A's and B's.
>>16984979>here's the output scriptNice table you got there. Show me a derivation.
>You have not defined "information" in any meaningful way. Exactly the same amount of mathematical information can be encoded with a string of A's as can be encoded with a permutation of A's and B's.
>>16984998https://zenodo.org/records/20349584?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6IjY2NGZkMTg2LWNkNDctNGFjMi1iMzE0LWEyM2JiZDgzMTJkMiIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiI4MGE1ZTczMzgyM2RiMTc0ODJmNzFlZmE2ODgwNGRmNyJ9.PNzWZrBLwiI7dnGhw2XAGmkXar9v3Mdd5SOLXmuypjAa1DITgXNte9rTc-Pn3UZXXTZHJC8OBFoML-xJ_DWKvg
>>16985000not him but what extra information do you get with the fibronacci counting compared to unary?
>>16985002Not clicking that. If you can't provide a simple derivation in this thread then why should anyone care about your paper?
>>16985010the internal structure is hierarchical, recursive, self-referential, aperiodic, asymmetric.You get access to all of these features once you select the fibonacci substitution as first rule. Unary has none of them. You can't get an asymmetry flow of time with an unary because there is no bias, its the same going forward as it is backwards.The asymmetry of time comes up whenever you express the discrete increment of phi^2=phi+1 into a fibonacci-mobius strip, it then becomes a continuous increment
>>16985014dawg you are irrelevant, I don't need your approval or endorsement. If you need the kernel, the kernel is there. If you need the derivation, the derivation is there. If you just want to whine and cry like a bitch go ahead, be my guest. I came to show something cool and interesting. If you don't find it cool or interesting then you can FUCK OFF
>>16984964>where are you getting n's and + and 1 from?Ever heard of a series?The same thing you're trying to construct in your argument?Except instead of A tending towards AB and B tending towards A you will have A that always tends towards AReplacing with binary110101Is your series, where mine would be1111...As A tends towards infinity
>>16985018>the internal structure is hierarchical, recursive, self-referential, aperiodic, asymmetrIn other words, you value it for aesthetic appeal. Cool. Not sure the universe cares.>>16985036You haven't provided a derivation of anything. You keep linking to a paper that you apparently can't explain in plain english. Pick anything observable. Show how it arises from this fibonacci transformation. Stop linking to your shitty paper and explain it.
>>16985062I don't really care about OP's AI slop but it's funny how brainlets like you think an idea is invalid unless the author dumbs it down and spoonfeeds you so that you could form a coherent opinion on it.
>>16985062Sorry for barging but like, isn't the point of a scientific paper specifically that it isn't in plain English to guarantee technically correct explanations? Or are the formulonies actually not that important after all?I'm not the author, but as I understand the thread the statement - in plain English - is that from nothing we get duality which itself constantly develops into complexity, but clearly you would agree that this is not much of an explanation.
>>16985066>an idea is invalid unless the author dumbs it down and spoonfeeds youNo. The idea isn't "invalid" because of that. But it's a massive red flag when someone hides their extraordinary claims behind a wall of jargon. OP could be absolutely 100% correct. But if he refuses to make his case, then he shouldn't be surprised when nobody takes him seriously.The question is "how is this theory different from all the other schizo babble that sounds just like it?" Answer that and maybe I'll sincerely engage with it.
>>16985072>it's a massive red flag when someone hides their extraordinary claims behind a wall of jargonYou can say the same about any theoretical physics paper. You only make the complaint based on credentials.>The question is "how is this theory different from all the other schizo babble that sounds just like it?"Who said it is? It's just that your crowd is foaming at the mouth constantly about "schizos" and not being able to actually engage with their stuff and refute them makes you froth even harder.
>>16985077>You can say the same about any theoretical physics paper. You only make the complaint based on credentials.The problem isn't that the jargon exists. You're correct in your earlier post:>>16985067>isn't the point of a scientific paper specifically that it isn't in plain English to guarantee technically correct explanations?But, outside of the paper, there exist plain-English breakdowns of what's actually being claimed and a rough idea of how they get from point A to point B. String theory is very heavy in jargon and math. But if you ask its proponents to summarize it, you'll get something along the lines of "the properties of fundamental particles arise from the vibrational modes of so-called 'strings' which make up all particles in the universe." And if you ask "in what way," you'll get an answer. Not a defensive "fuck off and read the paper."
>>16985087That's not my post, I just couldn't be bothered to read through the thread any more than I can be bothered to read OP's paper, so I didn't notice someone else already rubbed your face in it. If it wasn't for your religious zeal to deboonk "schizo" takes and the compulsion to LARP as a rational skeptic, you would've ignored the thread. But you're an impulsive niggermoney on one hand and too intimidated to engage with the OP on the other, so you're gonna spend the entire thread arguing why the correct /sci/ etiquette is for OP to spoonfeed you until you feel you can respond.
>>16985091>y-you're too intimidated to parse through OP's schizobabbleSure thing buddy. Still waiting on OP to make anything resembling a coherent point.
>>16985067A well-written paper in any field includes introduction and explanation in plain english.
>>16985098>>16985107>the brainlet will be stuck in this loop foreverTextbook case of >>16985091
>>16985110Arguing about other people arguing pointlessly is even more pointless. It's an even more generic and boring loop that applies to any arbitrary thread.
>>16985118>pointlessly arguing about others' pointless argument about arguing pointlessly How pointless...
>>16985054yes bro I know what a series is but you are introducing a whole lot at a stage that has not much of anything. How are you constructing exponents? How are you even counting? We don't even have naturals yet.>>16985062in other words, ur a fucking retard, stay in the peanut gallery chudling. I've explained over and over, if you haven't gotten it yet you'll never get it.>>16985067Yes, you gotten what the peanut gallery could not. From nothing comes a duality that leads to complexity from simplicityvery easy concept, very clearly demonstrated.>>16985072>"how is this theory different from all the other schizo babble that sounds just like it?"well gee maybe its the fact that it is zero-parameters with a single forced input with an accuracy of 0.063%that might be telling you something idkHere I'll explain it once again for all the brainlets around here ( I thought there would be more smart people here desu )you pick the most minimal claim and follow the simplest rules. Rules are picked on entropic minimization.The end. that's the entire theory. It was never complicated, I've repeated this multiple times, y'all are genuine just retarded.>>16985087I'm going to tell you fuck off if you ask for a derivation and I hand you the derivation and you whine about itYou never asked for an explanation or a summary. Don't be disingenuous about what you asked for.
>>16985119Indeed, every step down the meta ladder is even more generic and pointless, first step included. "If you were really smart you would just ignore this thread" is a self-effacing point every time
>>16985122>"If you were really smart you would just ignore this thread" is a self-effacing point every timeWhom are you quoting, brainlet?
>>16985127a paraphrase of>If it wasn't for your religious zeal to deboonk "schizo" takes and the compulsion to LARP as a rational skeptic, you would've ignored the thread.
>>16985128That's not a paraphrase, though. A paraphrase retains the original meaning. Are you literally disabled?
>>16985121>you pick the most minimal claim and follow the simplest rules.I will say this once again: your rule is not simpler than other rules posted. A unary sequence has fewer rules and can encode exactly the same amount of information. You reject it because it's not "interesting" in your subjective opinion.
>>16985129WOW U GUYS ARE SO SMART BY BEING PETULANT SUB-HUMANS, VERY IMPRESSED BY YOUR COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
>>16985130Hey mate, give it a read again>>16985000
>>16985130oh wait since you are just going to repeat I might as well repeat,here it is again>>16985000
>>16985130I will say it once again and once again and once again and once again,read this>>16985000have you read it ?Great, read it again>>16985000 have you read it yet?Great, read it again>>16985000fucking chudling brainlet
like this motherfucker sincerely thinks he has a point with the unary here read it again since you love posting it non fucking stop>>16985000 READ DAMN YOU.YOUR UNARY HAS NO STRUCTURE.YOU CAN'T BUILD SHIT WITHOUT A STRUCTURE.DUMBASS.
>>16985121The exponent is there merely for visual aid, since A^n = A^n+inf we can simplify it as A=A or simply A
>>16985135The order shown in binary can be represented as a sequence length in unary.Your "structure" requirement is arbitrary.
>>16985146I mean that's really just an identity then, it doesn't have much at all going on. Seems like a trivial ruleI'm looking for the simplest rule that leads to (non-trivial) growthendless 0's and endless 1's are boring 0/1 latching is boring, fibonacci matrix is the first one that can actually be built on
>>16985154aight dawg whatever the fuck you wanna say, go ahead and try to pull physics out of something lacking structure lemme know how that works out
>>16985164You haven't shown physics coming out of your system yet. You keep insisting that we read your paper but you haven't even begun to show that your system is even sufficient to do anything with.I skimmed your portion on 3+1 dimensional spacetime and it seems to just assert "4 is the smallest non-fibonacci integer and the sum of two fibonacci integers therefore that's where spacetime comes from."
>>16985161Aren't A=AB and B=A merely identities? If A=AB and B=A we can simplify it to just A=AA and each A could encode a bit of information by being either aloneA = 0or pairedAA = 1
>>16985166yeah other than the no-parameter 0.063% accuracy kernel I haven't shown anythingIt's kinda the elephant in the room, it's probably best to keep ignoring it>I skimmed your portion on 3+1 dimensional spacetime Okay so what do we use to construct time and space for the spectral triple doubly twisted hopfion?We use F_2 and F_4By geometric construction F_2 is time and F_4 is space.
>>16985173its not A=AB, its A turns into ABits a fibonacci substitutionA->AB, B->AAABABAABAABABAABABAthe fibonacci words are your fundamental building blocks used to construct everything else, true primitives.
>>16985177>no-parameter 0.063% accuracy kernelYou haven't shown this. You assert it. You've shown a table but not how you got there.>what do we use to construct time and space for the spectral triple doubly twisted hopfion?>We use F_2 and F_4>By geometric construction F_2 is time and F_4 is spaceSo you're imposing fibonacci terms into a topological structure and asserting that this is where the entirety of topology originates? Good going.
>>16985182Yes, I understand what you're saying, but equivalently it can be said that if A turns to AB then A is equal to AB, so substitution itself becomes an excess parameter in your set of rules, since instead of writing A->AB you can simply write AB and instead of writing B->A you can simply write A. So since A=AB and B=A then AB=AA and A=AA and so A=AFrom there we can writeAAAAAAAAAAAAASo if we imagine A=0 and AA=1 we cpuld construct an alternating series of binary encodings that overlap in superposition.
E^2 = m^2 + p^2m^2 = E^2 - p^2m^2 = (E+p)(E-p)m = (√E +i√p)(√E+i√p)(√E+√p)(√E-√p)Mass is a standing wave phase locked to the real observable phasep=(√E+i√m)(√E-i√m)(√E-√m)(√E+√m)Momentum is the moment of mass phase locked to the real observable phaseAnd "massless things" are not truly massless, they have imaginary mass that is phase locked to the imaginary complex phases we cannot perceive because we are phase locked to the Real phases.All of QED, and QFT cannot be described without i and wick rotations. The photon doesn't move through Real spacetime, it is a particle in the complex phase which appears to be a waveform in the Real phase, while mass is a particle in the real phase that appears to be a waveform in the complex phases. Shrodingers equation says that waveforms spread indefinitely, that is what the formula predicts. Mass defies this, so QFT which denies the ontological existence of a syntropic restorative complex phase is not only not ontologically grounded, it's not science at all. It conjures black box instruments without ontological grounding to obscure its own conclusions in order to continue denying that Logos, which has been articulated as God, and encoded in our myth for thousands of years, doesn't exist.
>>16985187ur right, let me put binky baby in his high chair and spoon feed himno, I don't impose anything. There's a single claim and a single forced input and everything else is a result of that. I didn't choose F_2 and F_4 as time and space, that's what they must be given the claim and the rule.
>>16985191>There's a single claim and a single forced input and everything else is a result of that.I understand that's what you *want* this to be. I'm telling you it seems to be very much not that. And you haven't justified that this is anything more than you arbitrarily imposing fobonacci terms where they don't need to be.
>>16985190wave/particle duality comes from the hopfion, depending on where and how you measured it you'll see difference faces of it or behaviors.
>>16985196what have I chosen then bud, tell me the parameter/s I have arbitrarily imposed. There's one input at the beginning that's forced structurally on the basis of uniqueness primitivity and minimality, everything else is the result of that. 4 is also an over-determined unique solution. It can't be a parameter if its the only option.
I will gradually peer review your paper OP, at least until I get bored. Finished Part 1. I don't contest any of the claims about the Fibonacci sequence and related constructions.One issue: you seem to be claiming that you're able to reconstruct huge swaths of mathematics from just the empty set and the Fibonacci substitution. Your Axiom 1 is "the empty set exists", which every mathematician already takes as an axiom and makes your paper look amateur. I suspect you put it there because you want to emphasize that you're starting from as few assumptions as possible. But in Definition 2 you appeal to {0} which traditionally the axiom of pairing, and then you go on to talk about the free monoid over an alphabet which requires significantly more ZFC yet.Maybe you should just take the existence of alphabets and monoids as your foundational concept.Actually did learn some interesting things from Part 1's Fibonacci facts. Looking forward to continuing.
>claim nothing in the beginning>require introduction of something>"if something existed then it is interesting that something else would exist">from nothing>null"something theory" is a better name.thanks op, will not read.
>>16985205Got it, thanks for actual criticism. Yes, I put it there for emphasize. The focus is more of a reconstruction of physics than of math and how mathematical principles emerge physically. I'll definitely do some revisions
>>16985202Why that particular hopfion? Why a hopfion at all?
>>16985216a doubly twisted hopfion perfectly encodes the fibonacci matrixas I said before, most minimal claim, most simplest rule, then you follow the principle of entropic minimizationgoing from the fibonacci matrix into the doubly twisted hopfion is not only entropically free, it then allows you to encode more information. Then whenever the information/energy/mass gets too dense it then projects holographically into a soliton to further have space to encode>Why that particular hopfion? Why a hopfion at all?its entropically free to transition from a fibonacci matrix to a doubly twisted hopfion, it provides an avenue/pipeline for information to flowAll principles can be reduced down to "water flows downhill"
>>16985221>a doubly twisted hopfion perfectly encodes the fibonacci matrixYour reasoning is circular. You impose this fibonacci operator as the most fundamental component of the universe (perhaps second to the empty set) and then take a hopfion which encodes the resulting matrix and then act surprised when they correspond. And somehow you use that topological structure to then say "this is where spacetime comes from" as a result of an imposed mathematical correspondence.
>>16985232im saying 4 is overly-determined and uniqueI then say the doubly twisted hopfion is a free route / entropic minimum path for the fibonacci matrix to takeif it takes this path ( it does ) then time and space must be F_2 and F_4Again, what am I imposing? What are the parameters? What am I 'surprised' about?
>>16985215Honestly I had to skim part 2 a bit since now I'm getting lost in the technical jargon.Another writing tip: who's your audience here? If it's professional mathematicians then you don't actually need a whole lemma (34) proving that 4 is the smallest non-Fibonacci number and other obvialities. If you're writing for a more undergraduate audience then you can't just drop in phrases like Z/2Z-grading and "first Stiefel–Whitney class" without explaining what you mean more clearly
>>16985244>the doubly twisted hopfion is a free route / entropic minimum path for the fibonacci matrix to take"You can represent a matrix in a certain way" is not the same as saying "this certain way naturally arises from that matrix." This conflation seems to be rampant in your paper. You can represent this fibonacci matrix as a mobius operator, therefore the mobius operator naturally arises from the fibonacci matrix? It's a critical flaw im your paper's reasoning. You make a logical leap by showing various ways to represent this operator and then assert those representations as a natural consequence of the operator.
>>16985253each construction has a different use, the fibonacci-mobius is a primordial construction that is responsible for the flow of time, the projection of shapes and numbers. time is the continuous expression of the discrete phi^2=phi+1Anyway you can run it thru the coexter/platonic proof, the hopfion or the algebraic, all 3 converge on the same predictionsbut the doubly twisted hopfion definitely arises in nature, you can see the doubly twisted hopfion from the ferro cell and my hopfion_viewer.html is the only program that has managed to replicated what is seen in the ferrocell so I have additional experimental reason to believe in the doubly twisted hopfion besides its entropic minimality and its convergence with the coexter/algebraic proof>>16985250got it, I'll go over and add annotation and commentary. I was also considering writing a pop-science version as well that is easily digestible.
real doubly twisted hopfion pic
toy doubly twisted hopfion
>>16985256That these classrs of structures appear in nature is not the point. The point is you constructing an example of one via fibonacci operator cannot be taken to imply every other example of a given structure is consequent of that particular operator you used.This is like when people see the golden spiral then conclude every logarithmic spiral is related to the fibonacci sequence.
>>16985256the jargon didn't let up and I got filtered so now I'm just skimming through offering thoughtsTheorem 108: I'm confused about the significance of this theorem. You seem to be presenting it like 4 is the only number that simultaneously satisfies conditions C1-C4, but your proof is that 4 is the *only* number satisfying condition C2, and also the *only* number satisfying condition C4. I don't understand the conceptual significance of this configuration
>>16985266>>16985256also, what's the "lepton-mass polynomial" you talk about in Theorem 107? You never define that in your paper, and that phrase doesn't turn up anything on Google (this is of course one reason you need to cite sources)
>>16985260sure I agree but I needed a geometric primitive for the Dirac operator in order for the spectral triple to be able to do anything. I identified the fibonacci hamiltonian as the physical basis, I needed something that worked with the fibonacci hamiltonian. The doubly twisted hopfion is what works. There is only so many options that can even fit in that slot...Like I'm not picking things willy nilly, there's a lot of constraints I had to deal with.>>16985266I'm just showing that it's an overly-determined unique from multiple angle. Its capable of dropping any of them and still being the unique solution. Just saying its an overly unique solution, just clarifying that it's not handpicked.>>16985268Got it, I'll clarify the polynomials. The fibonacci-mobius is responsible for the gauge groups and the platonics and the gauge polynomials come from this interconnected relationship. Yeah re-reading it is very vague where I'm getting that from, thanks for the check
>>16985277Now I've skimmed ahead to your summary -- which I would have placed in the introduction>M¨obius parity 3+1d spacetime. The admissibility level l = 4 has Zeckendorf decomposition 4 = F4 + F2 = 3 + 1, identified as spatial and temporal dimensions (Theorem 37). The level 4 is the smallest Zeckendorf-2 integer, the smallest non-Fibonacci, the first pure-Lucas, and the smallest σ-unreachable length: four coincident senses converge on l = 4 (Lemma 35).how does mobius parity play into this argument?
>>16985279mobius parity is the global time, its the continuous expression of the discrete increment phi^2=phi+1 . There's room for information to leak from discreteness into continuity, and so it does.I'll need to write a paper on the cosmology, that's a whole topic in itself
>>16985277>There is only so many options that can even fit in that slot...That is also not the point. Let's say the hopfion is the only thing that "fits that slot." This should not be taken as a relationship to the infinitely many other doubly twisted hopfions which don't fit in.Again, it's the same error people are making when they say golden spirals are ubiquitous in nature when, in reality, nearly all naturally occurring logarithmic spirals have a completely unrelated eccentricity.
>>16985277>I needed a geometric primitive for the Dirac operator in order for the spectral triple to be able to do anything.Oh, and this is a problem as well. If your thesis is that all of these things arise "naturally" from your initial conditions, then the fact that you're going around looking for things that "fit in a slot" is evidence to the contrary. You're explicitly constructing things to make the model work rather than letting the model do the work for you. Every time you do that, you're injecting a new set of assumptions, which you claim your model lacks.
>>16985303I get what you're saying, I really do, but there has to be a geometric primitive capable of dynamics. I could've had fallacious reasoning ( or not ) in choosing the hopfion but I had to choose something.And it works well, the entropic minima of the saddlepoint of the hopfions is used to derive newtons inverse square law, big G, lorenz invariance, etc. So it was obviously the correct choice in retrospect.so even if my reasoning behind my decisions aren't necessarily perfect, the result is, and that's the important part.
>>16985311yes, if only models could construct themselvesbut they can't. I still need to think things out.
>>16985312Unless I misunderstand you, I don't think you're addressing what I was saying. Let's say you choosing a doubly twisted hopfion was perfectly valid. Let's also say that doubly twisted hopfions are ubiquitous in the universe. Without contesting either of those points, my point is that you still need to show that the specific doubly twisted hopfion that arises from your theory is the same as those which arise from the natural laws of the universe. That is how you begin to show that your model's laws and the universe's laws are the same laws.At least your model does make a testable prediction, I'll give it that.>>16985314I think I see where you're coming from. But the way you pitched this model is that you can extract all of physics from this simple fibonacci operator. But by the time we get to your first description of a physical property of the universe (3+1D spacetime) you're already relying on assumptions you've made beyond that simple set of axioms you started with.
>>16985325remark 32 covers the forcing actions for the hopfion.the hopfion was something that I knew had to be there and afterwards it turns out to be forced. This was similar to the 4 but in reverse, I knew the 4 was there and was forced but I didn't know why it was there or what it represented until later.everything is still forced, it has to be a doubly twisted hopfion, I just didn't have the concrete reasoning for why it had to be forced until I had a chance to take a deeper look at it.>At least your model does make a testable prediction, I'll give it that.oh yeah bro the accuracy is great and the orbitals are literally the crispest orbitals I've seen, if you hadn't had a chance to look at the tidal locked 3 body on rainbow I highly recommend it
>>16985283In this post as well as the article I find myself getting confused by how loosely you're using the phrase mobius parity. When you originally define it you say it's the name for the Z/2Z grading. Then in Corollary 26 you give six very different examples of Z/2Z gradings or constructions of that flavor and call them all instances of mobius parity. Are you just using mobius parity to capture the idea of "mathematical object with a notion of sign which is well-behaved with evenness/oddness"?Also can you explain the conclusion of Lemma 20(iii) a bit? I don't see how the fact about phi-conjugate relates to mobius parity.
>>16985334also no one has a master kernel with an auto-selection rule for corrections. That is a genuine zero-parameter master expression. That is the REAL DEAL. Show that to someone who knows what they are looking at and it will melt their McNugget
>>16985334That's not what a "forcing" looks like. What you did was a retrofit. I'll refer you to your post here:>>16985314A forcing would be a portion of the model that does, indeed, "construct itself." The most generous interpretation of what you did was to ask "what geometric primitive fits here?" then found one that fits the bill. Without questioning the validity of doing that, a forcing would be if a geometric primitive happened to arise from simple iteration of your axioms without need to ask the question at all. No shift in representation is "forced." That you represented it with a hopfion isn't forced. What is forced is the particular hopfion that represents your operator after you've chosen that particular representation. That's why showing that this particular hopfion is what shows up in nature is the important bit.
Hey OP, Theorem 53 is false. Base-phi balanced ternary representation (that's essentially what you're describing there) is definitely not unique. By fudging around with the greedy algorithm, you can write 0 -- and therefore any other number -- as a sum with some nonzero coefficients
>>16985337the mobius parity Det M = -1 manifests in 6 different ways, they are all equivalent to the mobius parityDet M = - 1 = phi * ( -1/phi)they are the dual eigenvalues of the fibonacci matrix and they tag along for the ride whenever that fibonacci matrix becomes continuous in the form of the mobius
>>16985345thanks! yeah I need to rewrite the bergmans and rewrite that section , I'll make a note of it. I did end up finding the actual rule I think yesterday, which is what the master expression uses. I didn't realize there was a discrepancy in the greedy search though
>>16985341perhaps you're right, I'm considering toning down the language. I'm going to look over everything and take these messages under consideration
alright guys thanks for the suggestion, I am cooked for tonight, gonna be doing revisions later
>>16985352You don't just need to rewrite that section anon you need to re-prove every theorem that used it previously and re-evaluate every time you use the concept of Bergman's corrections, since they might not be well-defined
>>16985346You're still being confusing. Is the modulus parity the expression "Det M = -1"? Is it the determinant itself? Is it your name for the two eigenvalues? You're doing math here, you need to rigorously define your technical terms (unless you're not using it as a technical term at all but just a conceptual catch-all)
