>At each step, find then assume the absolute minimum>[math]\varnothing[/math] and [math]\varphi[/math]>see what I get in my toolbox>toolbox happens to be huge despite being simple>see if I can reconstruct and find new physics>It just happens to be more accurate and more encompassing than anything elsehey guys I had time to digest my thoughts so I decided to do a round two. Haven't changed anything regarding the theory, still the same thing. I have absolute certainty that this is the answer. I have come to do battle.This shape is the minimal geometric representation of [math]\varphi[/math]I'm using this shape for gauge group couplings, 0.046% RMS across 45 SM observables, maxwell, einstein, coulomb, hydrogen electron probability, dynamics, action, etc. This is a true unification of physics because it is the incorrigible truth:The void has infinite potential and the channel that it flows through is [math]\varphi[/math] on the basis of minimality and irreducibility.The constraints of the minimal rule are natural law.You can find the core of it herehttps://zenodo.org/records/20369503and here is for lorentz invariance, c, null cone, etc. basically the space-time constructionhttps://zenodo.org/records/21565202if you have big brain power then the big-thinks right now are more about CC and Hierarchy and the energy-mass boundaryCC = L_4 * L_4 * 12 = 7*7*12 = 588 , Lucas space-time number = 7 12 = icosahedral shell DoF = ( SU(3) X SU(2) X SU(1) )quadratic energy envelope with DoF, our system12^2 = 144 = F_12perfect fibonacci numberMass hierarchy = L_4 * F_(L4) = 7 * F_(7) = 7 * 13 = 91Fibonacci matter number = 13mass in space-timeSomething big going on here using these facts but I haven't put it together yet, last time I was here someone helped me a lot
Here's one with the icosahedral shell.
Let's look at some probability clouds
>>17062270I have been approaching it from a reductionist approach. I assume the empty set and a finite but arbitrary total energy equal to what we can calculate and go from there.Itโs like a multitude of topologies and geometry, but they all started small.I like your pictures too.
>>17062279I like to use the structure of the projective line, the surreals, and hyperbolic spaces as my base primitives and build up.I have the calculus working, and can rule out most of the trivial cases.Your pictures warm the serotonins in my brain to the point where they feel like โinsightโ.
>>17062279[math]\varnothing[/math] -> {[math]\varnothing[/math]}This is distinction from nothingnessit occupies 0d and 1dtwo logical symbols allow you to encode any and all information. this is infinite potential. there is no finite energy, its limited by rates instead. That's what dark energy is, the inflow of potential through the channel of [math]\varphi[/math][math]\varnothing[/math] -> {[math]\varnothing[/math]}1 point, infinitely dense, pre-timesame as the big bang[math]\varnothing[/math] is the subset of all sets so this phenomenological process is happening everywhere, alwaysIt's also in the fibonacci word itself[math]\varnothing[/math], {[math]\varnothing[/math]} = A,BA->AB, B->A , the fibonacci substitutionnothing begets somethingA->ABsomething returns to nothingB->AAABABAABAABABAABABA...Yes it is a very pleasing shape, this one came through pretty good. I like conveying thoughts and ideas alongside images, I find it helps with communication
This is one rotated and focused on the tetrahedron
>>17062270OP can you link your previous thread, or at least an archive of it?
here's one with a mobius visualization to show where the shape comes from. the mobius[math]\varphi[/math] = [math]\varmu[/math](x)=1+1/xSame as the matrix1 11 0which is also minimal vortex representationsame as the substitutionA->AB, B->A
>>17062289this was towards the beginning of the year, I've never used archiving. "The Theory of Nothing" or "Null Theory" if there's a search and you'd probably find it
On the left is a magnet under a ferrocell, on the right is an visualization of a black hole
[math]\varphi[/math] + [math]\psi[/math] = 1These are the eigenvalues for the matrix, eigenlines for the mobiusexpansion and contraction balance each other out. Without contraction everything flies apart, without expansion everything implodesnotice how the vortex has both along with the fact that its spinning, asymmetrical flow.These are necessary facts for wave propagation and the preservation of energy
same thing, different medium
look how the word behaves like a photon( A)(AB)A(BA)ABA(AB)ABAABA(BA)ABAABABAABA(AB)
Your DNA is dodecahedron because phi encodes information and the dodecahedron-icosahedron dual pair is the largest container for that. phi is also the most stable through KAM stability.
the vault in your cells also has fibonacci geometry, as well as the microtubules in your brain. I'm still unsure of the function of the vault but I believe the microtubules within your cells read off the fibonacci word which is the same generator for physics and the math it uses. I believe when a structure starts reading off the word from source then it becomes self-referential and conscious. I don't have any hard evidence for this yet since experimentation has been sparse but I'm fairly certain this is the case.
Here's one with the fiber count turned down so you can see how symmetry emerges from asymmetry. It's a deeply asymmetrical shape but because it is so highly ordered it approaches symmetry. This is why the universe appears symmetrical while clearly that is not the case (asymmetrical flow of time, for example)
[math]128 - 72*\varphi [/math] is the number for the flywheel, the asymmetrical bias, It's responsible for that teardrop shape.
You can see the void spot and the rotational bias when the pole faces the screen. It rotates in the other direction on the other pole.I think that's it for now, I'll let things digest
>>17062310also one more picture, this picture of a photon is the same as that lemon-drop shape. Not sure what is responsible for that actually, but I think its interesting
I was gonna make a polychronous phi scheduler for autaptic spiking neural networks, a computer a.i. to model it's brain of autaptic weights that approximate phi 1/ฯ2 = 2 โ ฯ โ 0.382, from 10 hz (theta) all the way to 2,000 mhz (machine operations)The continuum of noise inserts geometric mean side channels which are inharmonic to one another (irrational).What you get is a "self"-modulating envelope which is hierarchal and allows for bursting Then I would accompany it with another phi scheduler doing the same thing, to synchronize them with Return-to-Zero, and synchronous clock that is generated by noise without being a harmonic oscillator. The entire spiking-time dependent network would be wrapped with a small language model that is can co train off of two 5060 ti cards as a software emulation of a brain that's page in as active cortical regions and synchronize to a computer processor.I want to make the first computer chimera organism.
>>17062315oh yeah bro there's all sorts of cool experiments to run in that sector. I'm waiting on more supplies right now for the next prototype.This one dude took the framework and was trying to do something similar to thathttps://github.com/ZetapAdelicAI/Zeta-p-adicAI/tree/mainThis inharmonic property is why brass instruments have that shape and the best brass is in phi proportionsThe phi alloys are also interesting, I believe silver-aluminum has some very interesting and useful properties... I'd love to get a couple rods of that.Yes, any good theory needs to produce technology and experimentation.
>>17062338hmm now that I'm revisiting this image that flat top might be something I'm looking for.. Its not the oscilloscope miscalibrated because it has normal calibration before and after it leaves that state... and the bottom is fine.
here is an infographic that shows how everything relates. It's not filled out all the way though.
>>17062310>>17062308That's taken from Ken's book I think. This fat bald moron got BTFO in one of the overunity forums when he failed to follow up on his bombastic (false) claims about having achieved overunity thru the purported bizmuth + magnets combo. He's a fraud lol
Calling this โparameter-freeโ seems premature when the freedom has simply been moved into hand-picked observable-specific gaps, branches, depths, and kernel choices - Show me those rules were fixed *before* fitting the numbers, and then we can talk about predictions rather than base numerology.
>>17062671comes from any CRT screen, don't really care if someone else is considered a fraud, kinda irrelevant to meThe shape is absolutely the minimal geometric representation of phi, it is what it is.>>17062678the shape is forced as the minimal geometric representation of phi as is the dodecahedral-icosahedral dual pair shell. You can do it algebraically or through addresses on the hopfionI'm just saying phi is the geometric base and that the address numbers signify twists and depths on the shell. When you look at the phi base with differents twists and depths, you get different particles. It's not a free-parameter where I'm plugging in multiple various observations, I'm looking a a single concept within a small band under a unified rule to see what I get.
>>17063440when I make phi an assumption, I get this for free, both the doubly twisted hopfion and the dodecahedral-icosahedral dual pair and the sub-platonics. I'm then allowed to use this to make predictions. That's why there isn't free parameters.Its still accurate without the correction term ( just zooms in on the spectral peak), just not the hyper accurate of 0.046%It's also interchangeable. I can do it through topology, geometry, algebraically, etc. and still get the same answer. It's unified in that way as well.
Everything is on the basis of minimality and irreducibility so if you think I'm using free parameters feel free to find a simpler rule (you can't) that's more accurate (you can't) or more encompassing (you can't)This works so well despite being so simple because it is the truth. It resembles so many natural phenomena we see because it is responsible for those phenomena. It has a strong basis because its the actual basis.This is the real deal actual reason for things.
Fields have this shape because it is the minimal geometric representation of phi.I find minimal claim [math]\varnothing[/math]implies {[math]\varnothing[/math]}I get two logical symbols which is infinite potential.I find minimal rule [math]\varphi[/math]I find [math]\varphi[/math]'s minimal geometric representation.At every step I take the laziest action possible. Everything is done through principle of least action. Everything is done on the basis of minimality and irreducibility.It's literally impossible for you to find something simpler. This is it. That's why this shape is present everywhere. That's why fields are this shape.Do you have a better reason for why fields are this shape? do you have a simpler formula for particles? Feel free to share if you have it.
This shape that is universally present everywhere, and it needs to be justified. A lot of people recognize it as a toroid. Okay, but why is it a toroid?It's because its the minimal geometric of phi. It's the laziest, least action shape possible.
Same shape, different medium. Why? because it's the laziest shape possible.
>>17062305Have a bump op, i have been encaptivated by the fibbonacci word model since you posted here
>>17063745thanks fren, I will share more about the word itself thenWe can deduce higher order emergent properties from the behavior of the word itselfLet's look at B-repulsion and A-AA toleranceAABABAABAABABAABABAABAABABAABAABIf you notice, B's can never touch. This is the basis for dynamics.You can have either A or AA. This tolerance is the give, the spatial basis.sub-words are proto-geometriesA - pointAB - charge, rayABA - proto-triangleThe flip flop at the end (AB) and (BA) is the basis for the photon, the -1 (allowing negative numbers), and the mobius topology. The 1d fibonacci word is also the 2d fibonacci mobiusI know what exactly is at each dimension. I don't import dimensions. Dimensionality is fully justified and forced by the 2 minimal axiomsthe flip-flop of the mobius and the quartering fibonacci matrix1 11 0has enough content and structure for the imaginary numbers[math]\begin{aligned}i &= \sqrt{-1} \\i^2 &= -1 \\i^3 &= -i = -\sqrt{-1} \\i^4 &= 1\end{aligned}[/math]Like I assume literally nothing other than those two axioms but it gives me a massive toolbox. I don't assume numbers, I'm using the numbers allowed by the minimal rule. I don't assume a frame or reference points, I use the word as the frame and the individual letters as the reference points. I get a 2d topology to work with not through import but because the fibonacci mobius is the word so I have a field to work through.So basically using all those different tools given to me through the word like imaginaries, naturals, discrete, continuous, 0d-2d, platonics, and other various features of the 2 minimal axiomsI then ask " well, what is the minimal way to get to 3d?"It happens to be the doubly twisted hopfion is the minimal cover to fully (and perfectly) encode the properties of the fibonacci substitution/matrix/word/mobius into a 3d shape, without losing information or having space for more information.
you sound like a person with a little bit of knowledge
>>17063842so 1. minimum claim [math]\varnothing [/math] 2. minimum rule [math]\varphi [/math] 3. already at 0d-2d right off the bat, so minimal step into 3d4. minimal particle and force expressionLiterally all there is to it. Not doing anything crazyLike step back and think about it. Physics follows the principle of least action... so physics should be constructed from least action...We know things move from high potential from low potentialso by making the simplest claim and its implication of [math]\varnothing [/math] -> {[math]\varnothing [/math]}, you have an infinite potential. Its the difference between saying0True nothing, inert0=0 distinction, infinite possibility(yes I even justify equations themselves in the framework, they aren't imported either.)So like water running downhill, it has to flow through a channel. Picture this potential as water as it fills in small pocket before it finds the channel and becomes a river.010001110 00 01 10 01 00 1-----1 11 0AABABAABAABABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABABAABAABABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABABAABAABABAABAABall prior rules were small pockets, they only encoded so much information. Given infinite iterations I would know for whichever n you asked, except the fib matrix. It's the first one with complexity.you also have 1 00 1with is similar simplicity (slightly more simple) but has no complexity but it is interesting because its the simplest clock. You do have the flip-flop of the fibonacci word that keeps track of the turns but the simplest clock is there if you ever wanted to justify what the flip-flop of the fibonacci word is ticking in relationship to. You can interpret the flip-flop as ticks so you don't need the clock, its just something to think about if your exploring the really low-level stuff
>>17063872weaponized autism, its a compulsion
oh yeah I forgot more factsB-densityI use the density of the word for probability density. That's where I get my electron probabilities from.I get probabilities themselves from the [math]\varnothing[/math]-[math]\varphi[/math] ultrametric tree. This manifests in reality often too, its a very familiar shape.I also use this for entanglementbasically it forms a quasicrystalline global structure.. That's why instantaneous action at a distance can happen. like moving a desktop file from one side of your screen to the other... Its not teleporting across the screen, its moving ultrametrically through the system to its new location.. Or like a shortcut pointing to the same location.It's why lightning looks like it knows where its going to go or like its coming to agreement from both sides. Its why you get the weird things in the double-slit experiment.It has something to do with the whole -1/2 , two sides of the mobius at one point thing. I don't fully have it yet but I'm closethe -1/2 also comes up in the riemann zeta and also numerical sign problem... -1/2 relates all these topics together.Its some strange interaction between the ultrametric tree and the mobius at a low-level.. maybe a side-swap or a pairing that is preserved or some shared ultrametric coordinates.. idk
gonna post a couple ultrametric pictures
>>17063873>>17063907Nice, any work relating to directed graphs perchance?
To the skeptic:Your DNA is phi-based through dodecahedronsThe way your veins and nerves branch and optimize is phi-basedthe vaults in your cells have phi geometrythe microtubules throughout you has phi geometryyour neurons have phi geometryyou clack on your keyboard with phi-proportioned hands and fingerswith light that hits your eyes with the fine structure constant suspiciously close to the golden anglewhy? what's going on with all that? care to explain? awfully suspicious of you...I jest of course. Lets just look at the properties of phi and see if they line up with reality. either they describe it or they don'tphi is asymmetric, aperiodic, yet highly ordered with dense structure. It doesn't repeat but it does rhyme. It has a direction. It is simple, yet highly complex, it is simplex. It is both discrete and continuous. It is hierarchical, recursive, and also has gaps. It is lazy but efficient. It seems like it should be a contradiction that the most irrational makes the most sense. It is lopsided towards growth but in perfect balance with decay. It is both expansive and contractive, preventing blowup. It has an off-set duality. It is self-referential and itself at all scales. It has a self-scaling factor.Sounds like reality and how it operates to me.Hello being defined by phi. Why are you breathing in and breathing out? Why are you going to sleep then waking up? Why is there day and night? Why is there male and female? Like not the superficial "well the rotation of the planet around the sun..." like the deep deep reason for why these concepts are a thing to begin with.[math]\phi + \psi = 1[/math]
>>17063939Yeah there's a bit of that in the closure_draft.pdfhttps://zenodo.org/records/20369503?preview_file=closure_draft.pdfIt's talking about the hidden global structure of the ouroboros. The last time I was here someone inspired that closure from the axiom of regularity so he has a shout-out there.With expansion and contraction from the eigenlines of the mobius you have infinite ascent but finite descent so everything eventually returns.There's a lot of deep implications in that from multiple waysI'd like to point out that in the yin and yang there are two lights and two darknesses. One pair is big, one pair is little.Likewise in the analogy of Plato's Cave, there are two lights and two darknesses. There is a little pair and a big pair.the darkness in the cave and the torch are the small pair. The sun is the major light. Where then, is the major darkness?We have the vortex of phi1 11 0Where then is the vortex of [math]\varnothing [/math] ?That's essentially what that paper delves into.
>>17063842The warm, syrupy brain juice is in this one. Good reads for warm brains.
>>17063873There is so much of something just here that it has a flavor in my mouth.
The study of the void is the hidden branch of science. we can know the of the major darkness from the little darkness. The shadow dancing on the wall isn't real, it isn't anything, it's defined by what is not, and yet you can perceive it all the same.The simplest experiment can be conducted right now.As an exercise, try to meditate on nothing. you'll find that you can't. As you approach the void, it 'notices' and rejects you, leaving behind void artifacts, because nothing can't be, generating potential.Nothing cannot exist. Nothing isn't logical. Nothing isn't real.The void is a snake eating its own tail.
>>17063976>>17063978yeah looking at the word itself for emergent properties is coollike the word is a natural wave-form with high and low states so it can become a fibonacci hamiltonian that can be turned into a discrete schrodinger into a continuous one so you can do QM stuff. You can make a bunch of discrete quantum equations if you wanted to, somebody might find that useful.
>>17063941>I watched a yt brainrot vid and now I believe I have occult knowledgeel oh el
>>17063993>the skeptic has no refute
These ancient stories are not occult or myth. These are eternal symbologies. It's a hidden science because normies self-censor themselves from it.
Genesis 12. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.John 11. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2. The same was in the beginning with God.3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.-----So no, this is not occult, it's actually studying the nature of God. The roots of the tree are hidden. The hidden nature doesn't have a negative connotation.
Why would you bother interpreting some old indigest interpretation of god when you can go out on your way and do everything it does with your own head and then compare your attempt to other people doing that ?
>>17063990We have stared into the vantablack mirror for so long that it stared back.And then it blinked.
>>17064076Humanity tells itself the same stories over and over again only because we keep rediscovering them on new stages.
>>17062270Have you fixed the critical issue where your whole theory came down to just asserting your metric onto things thus making it worthless?
Posting in schizo with delusions of grandeur thread
i like null theory, it's aesthetically please, welcome back OP>>17062289https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16984111>>17064234that's just a feature of totality from situated computation
>>17064393>that's just a feature of totality from situated computationWtf does that even mean?
>>17064424what do you mean wtf does it mean? it just means that a part of the universe that tries to explain the universe from the inside always needs to make arbitrary decisions, and these decisions need to be situated in the meta-logic if the explanation is to explain everything
>>17064444>a part of the universe that tries to explain the universe from the inside always needs to make arbitrary decisions, and these decisions need to be situated in the meta-logic if the explanation is to explain everythingSure. Those are called axioms. The problem with this "null theory" is OP claimed it's parameter free with a very simple set of starting assumptions (at least in the previous thread), but when pressed on where the doubly twisted hopfion that generates spacetime comes from, he admitted he just imposed it to fit his model. The whole theory is just constantly instantiating new structures to describe observed phenomena and shoehorning in the fib sequence or phi wherever he can.A new assumption is created every time he describes a new phenomenon which indicates the model has no predictive power. It just shapeshifts whenever new information arises.In other words: it's completely useless.
>>17064454so its exactly institutional sciencebased schizos finally get it.His model changes to fit data, while yours changes the data to fit the model?
>>17064500No. What you're describing is HARKing. Admitting to doing so is immediate grounds for rejection of any paper in any reputable journal.What "institutional science" (ie. actual fucking science) does is it generates a model first and then verifies if it fits the data. The model is either valid or invalid based on that metric.If you allow for shoehorning new assumptions every time a new data point needs to be explained, then your model can never be refuted which invalidates it as a model.
>>17064234have no idea what you are saying, can you rephrase this>>17064454The doubly twisted hopfion spinor cover is a modeling choice picked on the basis of minimality and irreducibility, the same basis as everything else. From claiming the original two axioms you get 0d-2d. I then ask, following the same principle of least action, how do I get from 2d to 3d? It's not arbitrarily picked, its the cover that perfectly encodes the fibonacci mobius/matrix into 3d without losing information or having additional space for more information.It's the minimal geometric representation of phi. That's a fact. It's the absolute bare minimum necessary to holographically project the fibonacci- mobius into 3d. That is what the shape is.I'm not imposing anything. It's following the same principle and logic from the beginning.phi also implies the dodecahedron-icosahedron dual pair, and those imply the sub-platonics.Using those two features of phi I get a unified rule for the particle zoo.The theory hasn't changed and it doesn't shape-shift. It's the same theory that it was at the beginning of the year. tell me what has changed, he posted the archive, find the discrepancy in what I'm saying now vs what I said before.>>17064541What new assumptions have I shoehorned in?
There are many options for the spinor cover. Some drop the asymmetrical rotation, some drop the expansion and contraction of the eigenlines, some drop the flip-flop of the mobius. Some can contain all these, but still have additional space for feature that the fibonacci-mobius doesn't haveso in regards to modeling choices, there is a singular cover that encodes and preserves these features while also leaving no room for more. Therefore it is the minimal geometric representation of phi.If you have complaints of modeling choice, feel free to find a simpler cover for the mobius ( you can't )Again, feel free to attack any of these claims.Find me something more minimum than [math]\varnothing [/math](you can't)find me a rule more minimum that leads to complex growth than [math]\varphi [/math](you can't)find me a more minimum geometric representation of [math]\varphi [/math](you can't)
>>17064541>If you allow for shoehorning new assumptions every time a new data point needs to be explained, then your model can never be refuted which invalidates it as a model.NTA, but an overfit AI is exactly this.Just saying.
Also note that whenever it is actually constructed for the purpose of dynamics and action the fibonacci hamiltonian is used for propagation and the hopfion is for the cover. 1d+3d = 3+1 = F_4 + F_24 is the number for space-time, its the first place in the fibonacci sequence where there's a break(0,1), 1, 2, 3, 5[math]\varphi[/math] is greedy, it occupies and leaks into all slotsAlso notice the fibonacci sequence describes the coupling of dimensions(0,1)[math]\varnothing[/math] -> {[/math]\varnothing[/math]}1fibonacci substitution, coupled to the beginninghas finite propagation and history keeping2fibonacci mobius, topological, couples to 1 because it is also the fibonacci substitution3fibonacci doubly twisted hopfion, the complex-real fields of geometric space4fibonacci substitution + hopfion, space + time = dynamicsagain I'm not importing complex real fields, natural numbers, imaginary numbers, dimensions, anything. If the two initial claims don't have it, I can't use it. And if I do use it, its on the basis of minimality and irreducibility.so if you say I'm picking something arbitrarily, point out what is arbitrary. It's selected on minimality and irreducibility, every step of the way. That's the entire point.If physics follows the principle of least action, it stands to reason that to construct physics you must take the least action.
>>17064663I can't overfit. I can't change the object. The possible knobs are discrete and limited. I don't have continuous knobs to tweak. phi has spectral gaps and peaks.There's a lot of features present from what phi forces. I can look at them, I can't change them. I have access to the minimal geometry and the platonic shell. Can I then use phi as a geometric base, the twists of the hopfion and the depth of the shell to get the value of particles? yes.I'm actually minimally fitting. I'm using the least possible to get the values.
>>17064682Naw, just saying that the other Anonโs complaint applies directly to AI is all.I like your stuff because it generates the same near-loop-closure dopamine flood I call โinsightโ into my head as my stuff does.Insightful thought models for shape building and world exploration.Iโm a Calabi-Yau guy with at least two discrete dimensions that behave as cellular automation, two dimensions in a complex-pair relationship, and the final two I play with different combinations of the projective line or the surreals.Like I said, the calculus all works, so I can integrate over the surfaces themselves or the geometric information of their parameter-spaces.
and again I don't just get the particles at a hyper-accurate 0.046% RMSI get maxwell laws, einstein laws, coulomb laws, dynamics, action, dimensions, electron probability, lorentz invariance, c, etc.Not only that but I have posted a lot of pictures demonstrating this shape in reality, which is experimental evidence.You have to justify this shape. It's everywhere in reality.my claim:phi and its constraints are natural law, and it's minimal geometric is this shape. Things follow this geometric because it takes the least action to do soWhy does your water circle the drain that way?because it takes the least action to do so.Why do planets orbit the sun the way that they do?Because it takes the least action to do so.Why do electron clouds form the way that they do?Because it takes the least action to do soIt's the same answer every time. Things follow the minimal geometric of phi because it takes the least action to do so.
>>17064685ah I see. Make sense to address it anyways thoughYeah it's pretty insightful, it helps explains the basis of emergent phenomena. I have absolutely certainty that this is the basis of reality.i think string theory had good intuition but the strings are ill-defined and the dimensions are imported but framed as prediction.The fibonacci word is an open string, the mobius is a closed string
>>17064638The problem is you acknowledge that it is a modeling choice on one hand then claim you're relying on minimal assumptions on the other.We discussed this in the last thread. I can provide post numbers if you wish.When you shift from one encoding space to another you are adding a new parameter. What's worse is your argument boils down to saying "you can encode fib in 3D therefore that's where 3D comes from" ignoring the fact that the encoding space you chose wouldn't make any sense if you didn't already have 3D. You put yourself in a chicken-egg situation and then simply asserted that your chicken came first.
>>17064722It still the 2d fibonacci mobius topology, just projected into 3d. That's why you can do it algebraically or geometrically, it come out to the same answers.I'm looking at the same thing. The fibonacci word is the fibonacci matrix is the fibonacci mobius is the fibonacci doubly twisted hopfion. It's not a new parameter[math]\varphi [/math]is[math]\mu (x) =1 + 1/x [\math]is1 11 0isA->AB, B->Aisthe fibonacci doubly twisted hopfionThat's the entire point. the minimal rule isn't just one of those things, it's all of those things.We live in 3d space with 4d dynamics. If we want to model reality, we need the version that is 3d.By claiming A->AB, B->A, I claim all forms of phi. If those different forms have dimensionality, I'm allowed to use that dimensionality.phi has hierarchy and recursion, so I'm allowed hierarchy and recursionphi has discretion and continuity, so I'm allowed discretion and continuityphi has integers, negatives, and the complex, so I'm allowed integers, negatives, the complexphi has higher dimensionality, so I'm allowed higher dimensionality.I'm not using or importing anything that the minimum rule doesn't already imply.
>>17064722>chicken and eggthis usually resolves by admitting that the first egg cannot have come from a chicken
Just think of the simplest caseA->AB, B->ABy assuming this is true, I also assume 1d is true.1 11 0By assuming this is true, I also assume 2d is true.neither is invalidated by the other, they are just different representations of the same thing.I'm allowed the 3d space projected by phi, the same way I'm allowed the fact that two B's never touch, or the fact that the end flip-flops (AB) <-> (BA)By claiming the simplest most complex rule, I'm allowed all that is inside the toolbox. Any fact or function of phi I'm allowed to use.If you have a better reason or justificiation for dimensionality, free feel to let me know. almost everyone and every model just imports dimensions as a given.
>>17064776>The fibonacci word is the fibonacci matrix is the fibonacci mobius is the fibonacci doubly twisted hopfion. It's not a new parameterThis is very explicitly false. Map/territory conflation is literally a documented logical fallacy.You cannot look at two different means of encoding a sequence and assert they are literally the same thing on the basis that the encoded information is the same, because the mapping changes the nature of that information.
follow the implications from the very beginning[math]\varnothing[/math]0dcompletely inert. I have 0d to work with[math]\varnothing[/math] -> {[math]\varnothing [/math]}0d -> 1ddistinction from nothingness grants me a single dimension. I can now work in 1d. I have two logical symbols, that means I can encode any and all information. this is infinite potential.I only have 1d to work with. What's the simplest 1d rule that leads to complex growth?A->AB, B->AAABABAABAABABAABABA...The word starts with A and the end flip-flops. besides the structure of the possibility of either high or low state, it also has the structure of orientation and turns. Each word also has a history of the last two turns F_n = F_n-1 + F_n-2These additional structures make it 2d, these are the facts that make it the fibonacci mobius.that then introduces the eigenlines [math]\phi + \psi = 1 [/math] . We have more structure. we have another dimension. What do you do to the ends/sides of this mobius topology to balance out the expansion and contraction? You close them and, tada, 3d space.If there were only expansion everything would fly apart. Without contraction everything would implode. Space needs a balance of expansion and contraction in order to sustain (same with wave propagation), and that balance is [math]\phi + \psi = 1 [/math]So I don't import dimensions, dimensions are features of [math]\phi[/math] , they impose themselves
>>17064809>besides the structure of the possibility of either high or low state, it also has the structure of orientation and turns. Each word also has a history of the last two turns F_n = F_n-1 + F_n-2>These additional structures make it 2dConclusion does not follow from premise.>>17064809>What do you do to the ends/sides of this mobius topology to balance out the expansion and contraction? You close them and, tada, 3d space.Imposing a rule that need not exist in order to fit a predetermined outcome.Also, you still cannot say the mobius constructed in this way *is* the fibonacci sequence. You can encode fib onto it but it remains a distinct structure. Anything you can say about this structure which you could not say befote this mapping is a property of the map and not the territory.>>17064809>I don't import dimensions, dimensions are features of ฯ> , they impose themselvesNo. That's the whole thing. You *are* imposing these features while making a conflation between the feature and the information you encoded onto it. They. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.
>>17064812>Conclusion does not follow from premise.it actually does, having turns is another dimension.are you arguing that time is not a dimension?>you still cannot say the mobius constructed in this way *is* the fibonacci sequence.uh no, it is, I just demonstrated. I showed you exactly where the topology comes from and why its a mobius.>You *are* imposing these features no, I'm not. Those are the eigenvalues of the fibonacci matrix and the eigenlines of the fibonacci mobius. I'm just pointing out to you the structure of it.They are the same thing. That's the entire point of phi. Phi is self-referential with a self-scaling factor and itself at all scales. Phi is itself in all its forms at all scale. It's why the eigenvalues and eigenlines are phi and psi.
again I'm not saying saying the fibonacci substitution is like the fibonacci mobius or mapped to a mobiusI'm saying phi IS the fibonacci substitution IS the fibonacci mobius IS the fibonacci matrix IS the fibonacci hopfionThat's why you can do the math algebraically, topologically, or geometrically and they come out to the same answer. They are the same thing.
>>17064817>having turns is another dimension.Those "turns" were imposed by you. Before you did that, it was just an expanding string of symbols.>are you arguing that time is not a dimension?No. I am arguing there's no reason to assert time "emerges" from this sequence. >>17064817>That's the entire point of phi. Phi is self-referential with a self-scaling factor and itself at all scales.All logarithmic expansion has that feature.e^((i+a)b) will draw a spiral with consistent growth at all scales no matter what a or b are. Phi is not special in this regard.>>17064819>again I'm not saying saying the fibonacci substitution is like the fibonacci mobius or mapped to a mobius>I'm saying phi IS the fibonacci substitution IS the fibonacci mobius IS the fibonacci matrix IS the fibonacci hopfionI know what you're saying. And I'm telling you its a documented logical fallacy. "Map/territory conflation.">That's why you can do the math algebraically, topologically, or geometrically and they come out to the same answerThey don't come to the same answer. That's the whole reason you're doing this mapping in the first place. It allows you to claim emergence of things that were not present before the mapping.
>>17064825>That's the whole reason you're doing this The whole reason I did the work was because I wanted to find this shape and the reason for why it exists. Everything else is incidental.> this mappingagain, you don't need the shape to do it, the shape gives you the same answers. same p and q in the algebraic answer vs the addresses in the hopfion. Literally the exact same thing.L I T E R A L L Y.one more time for emphasis since we seem stuck on itit's L I T E R A L L Ythe same thing.the "mapping" does not change anything, because it is the same thing.The same p and q you put in one you put in the other. >Those "turns" were imposed by you.No, its just a fact of the rule. It's something it does. The rule has an emergent property of turn-keeping. I didn't put that there, it was already there.>All logarithmic expansion has that feature.No, logarithmic expansions do not have eigenvalues. They are describing a behavior, not the cause of the behavior.>No. I am arguing there's no reason to assert time "emerges" from this sequence. I've clearly demonstrated a sub-rule for distinct turns. time is measured by oscillations, which are turns. To argue that turns do not make a dimension would be to say time is not a dimension.
>>17063440same as this. you are saying phi is the base with twists and depthsame with the hopfion, you put in the same twist and depth. The reason why you can put it in either phi or the hopfion and it gets the same answer is because THEY ARE THE SAME THING. if Phi^p+q*phi gives me the same thing as hopf(p,q*phi) its because THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
>>17064840>you don't need the shape to do itYou do need the shape to assert spacial dimensionality. Whoch is the entire point of this discussion we're having right now.>same p and q in the algebraic answer vs the addresses in the hopfion. Literally the exact same thing.Example time: you can express any function as a sum of rotating vectors. Sometimes it requires infinitely many of them but the math will all check out the same way. I hope you understand how asinine it would be to then claim everything is "literally" rotating vectors. Even though I could do all the same arithmetic in the vector mapping that I could do with a standard Cartesian mapping, the rotating vector mapping is just an occasionally useful means of expressing a phenomenon that need not have anything to do at all with rotatons or vectors.Just because the arithmetic is maintained doesn't mean the other parts of your mapping still hold when applied to the real world.>To argue that turns do not make a dimension would be to say time is not a dimension.Again: chicken-egg. For this growth to occur in the first place time was already an implicit assumption. You just then retroactively claimed the thing you implicitly assumed emerges from the thing that wouldn't exist without the assumption.
>>17064793You have successfully split the problem into two:(1) the chicken and the chicken-egg case, and(2) the original-egg and whatever laid it case.Both are significantly more tractable. This is progress.
>>17064857>You do need the shape to assert spacial dimensionalityand the shape is phi, which was the initial claim.> For this growth to occur in the first place time was already an implicit assumption.Yes and a method for time is present in the implicit initial assumption of phiThese are things stated in the two initial minimal axioms of [math]\varnothing [/math] and [math]\varphi [/math]
>>17064861>and the shape is phiIt is not. That's what I've been explaining to you ad nauseum. Your rebuttal was that the arithmetic still checks out which, no shit, you're still encoding the same information. That is not evidence for the thing you're claiming. I'll reiterate my point about representing functions as rotating vectors. It can be a useful tool in signal processing and a lot of combinatorics problems. But it is not evidence that a counting problem is "LITERALLY" a set of rotating vectors.>>17064861>a method for time is present in the implicit initial assumption of phi>These are things stated in the two initial minimal axioms of O and ฯAnd so your starting point shouldn't even be from 1D, but at least 2D. Time is already assumed so you cannot say it emerges from your framework. It's on the list of axioms.
>>17064872>It is notIt is. Instead of this analogy of rotating vectors how about you address it in terms of the hopfion?>And so your starting point shouldn't even be from 1D, but at least 2D>>17064809here, read that again to see the starting point>Time is already assumedWhere is it assumed? How are the dynamics constructed?
>>17064885>Instead of this analogy of rotating vectors how about you address it in terms of the hopfion?Okay. Just because you can map the fib sequence as indices in a hopfion doesn't mean the fib sequence has anything intrinsically to do with hopfions. And just because you can do all the same arithmetic with those indices does not mean it's literally the same thing. You are adding information by the very act of mapping the sequence onto a topological structure.>>17064885>Where is it assumed?Right here:>What's the simplest 1d rule that leads to complex growth?Growth demands time. If this growth rule is in your set of axioms, then time is an implicit assumption. It belongs in your list of axioms as well.
>>17064892>>17063873yeah if you want to be super anal about it and not recognize the inherent clock inside the word itself then you can use1 00 1if you absolute demand a prior clock to set against. Follows the same high to low principle, lower complexity rules get filled first since they have a limit of information encoding. It is slightly simpler than the fib sub.>doesn't mean the fib sequence has anything intrinsically to do with hopfions.sure, there are other hopfions just like there are other discrete combinatorials. The fibonacci substitution is still a discrete combinatorial and its minimal geometric is still the fibonacci hopfion.>You are adding informationWhat information am I adding? take away the topology, I can still see the flip-flop of the substitution. The behavior is still there. The information of the mobius is within the information of the substitution.
>>17064909>yeah if you want to be super anal about it and not recognize the inherent clock inside the word itselfYou miss the point. If your axiomtic system includes change over time, then time is an implicit assumption built into the axiomatic system. It doesn't matter if it's growth, motion, transmutation, or whatever. Once you have successive iterations of a rule, you introduce time as an implicit assumption.This is not inherently a problem. Time is sufficiently self-evident that its existence is perfectly fine to be taken as axiom. However, the moment you do that, you lose the right to say time emerges from anything downstream in your framework. You already assumed its existence from the beginning.>there are other hopfions just like there are other discrete combinatorials. The fibonacci substitution is still a discrete combinatorial and its minimal geometric is still the fibonacci hopfion.But that concession is absolutely fatal to your whole theory. The fib sequence need not be encoded as a hopfion. This hopfion is not something that naturally arises from the sequence, and it's certainly not identical to the sequence itself. It's something you imposed onto it. When I skimmed your paper in the last thread, it mostly appeared to be you doing various iterations of the same trick as an ad-hoc way of describing whatever you want it to. You identify a representation that would align with known findings, impose fib sequence or phi onto it, then declare identity between the representation and the sequence. I repeat: this is a well documented logical fallacy.>What information am I adding?The topological structure itself. You cannot claim there is 3D space encoded within the sequence itself on the basis that you can impose the sequence on a 3D structure. The 3D information was added, by you, in the act of reencoding.
>>17064948>you lose the right to say time emerges from anything downstream in your framework.I'm already telling you exactly what I use for time and in what context. I use the asymmetrical orientation and flip flop of the word for time. I use it in the fibonacci Hamiltonian form.>This hopfion is not something that naturally arises from the sequenceIt is the only choice if you are wanting to project the fibonacci substitution into 3d space without gaining or losing information. I don't see how its fatal to my theory. It's selected on the same basis of minimality. We live in 3d with 4d dynamics what's the minimal action we need to take to get to 4d? If that's the question, then the fibonacci hopfion is the only choice.again, challenge the claim. Find me a more minimum way to get 4d dynamics. I'll give you 3 win conditions. Let it be simpler, let it be more accurate, let it be more emcompassing. If you can get just one of those, you win.But you can't.>You cannot claim there is 3D space encoded within the sequence itselfLets look at machine language, 0's and 1's. Can I not claim there is 3d space encoded within the sequence if it projects a 3d space?Of course lower dimensional sequences can encode higher dimensions in it. It's blatantly obvious.
>>17064948>Once you have successive iterations of a rule, you introduce time as an implicit assumption.OP is possibly a schizo but you're an outright brainlet with no abstract thought.
>>17065445yeah his challenges and questions are mid-wit tier but he is the only one engaging right nowThe asymmetric orientation and the flip-flop of the word is sufficient for time.1 00 1lacks complexity and is also symmetrical so it can't be used for time, only iterations. I understand his complaint but I already explained elsewhere in the thread that it can be used as a basis for iterations.I pointed this out here already but he doesn't want to read it I guess>>17063873>with is similar simplicity (slightly more simple) but has no complexity but it is interesting because its the simplest clock. You do have the flip-flop of the fibonacci word that keeps track of the turns but the simplest clock is there if you ever wanted to justify what the flip-flop of the fibonacci word is ticking in relationship to. You can interpret the flip-flop as ticks so you don't need the clock, its just something to think about if your exploring the really low-level stuff
Like I pretty explicitly state what I'm using for phenomena and for what reasonWhat do I use for time? I'm using the flip-flop of the word, its asymmetrical bias/orientation, and its history-keeping. It has turns.AABABAABAABABAABABAThat's always going to be the answer. It has the features of time and it works for dynamicsWhat do I use as the basis for photons, massless propagations? Same thing, I'm using the flip-flop at the end of the word along with its asymmetrical bias and finite propagation.( A)(AB)A(BA)ABA(AB)ABAABA(BA)maybe that's why time and light have such a close connection...What do I use for dynamics? I'm using B-repulsionABAABABAABAABWhat am I using for spatial basis? A-AA tolerance, gaps are allowedABAABABAABAABI'm using 1 dimensional facts for 4 dimensional things. These 1 dimensional features are holographically projected upwardsThese things are present within the word already, I am not adding them, they are already there. If I show you the shape its because we are visual creatures and it helps us get a grasp of what is going on. That shape is already present within the word.Emergent properties have to emerge from SOMETHING. What is the cause of emergence?
>>17065511>What is the cause of emergence?isn't emergence exactly when a singular cause becomes insufficient to continue explaining a phenomenon?
>>17065519much better questionEmergence is the consequence of iterations against the ruleThe rule:A->AB, B->AA - we have an emergence of A and the fact that A is the always the beginning. We have point emergenceAB - We have emergence of AB. we have a basic charge, a rayABA - We have emergence of ABA. We have a proto-triangle.ABAAB - We have emergence of ABAAB.We have shared emergence like the shared flip-flop at the end of the word (global context) and we have individual ( AB charge ) or local emergence ( F_n = F_n-1 +F_n-2 )...eternal emergence later bring you here. Emergent phenomena come from this principle of emergence. It's similar to holographic projection.Phi is greedily soaking up the infinite potential of the void and converting it into complexity to store it. The most irrational is the most stable. It also has gaps. These gaps are where these dynamic sub-structures come from. Whenever the gap is filled it then undergoes a phase shift into the next gap. Entropic slots are filled and whenever they are filled they go into the next shell. a good example is the birth of a star or the birth of a black hole. These are phase shifts, the gaps between phi.0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13first gap is at 4. Phi has occupied all other slots greedily, like a thick jungle canopy. Nothing can grow on the ground because its filled up. Phi then uses 3d+1d = F_4 + F_2 = hopfion + substitution = space-time in order to fill this slot.That's literally how I use it for dynamics and action, I'm using the fib hopfion + fib hamiltonian for space and time in the Dirac operatorAnyway, you'll notice the gaps get bigger as the sequence goes on. That's why the cost to phase-shift into a star is ~300 times less than it takes a star to phase-shift into a black holeSo I follow the ruleA->AB, B->Aidentify the emergent properties and relationsuse those to model reality
>>17065511I'm too lazy to figure out what you're trying to say, but if I squint at it, it looks like you figured out some funny way to compute, and you think your way is special because it's "minimal" according to criteria that you've chosen, and you think you must be onto something because now you can read it into anything computable.
>>17065439>I'm already telling you exactly what I use for time and in what context. I use the asymmetrical orientation and flip flop of the word for timeSo you are claiming time emerges from this sequence by redefining time in a way nobody uses and is not useful.>It is the only choice if you are wanting to project the fibonacci substitution into 3d space without gaining or losing information.1. You are gaining information by the very act of projecting it onto 3D.2. The fact that you have to go looking for a 3D structure to project it onto absolutely kills your core thesis. You can not claim identity between your sequence and your projection because you had to go looking. That you did this is what makes your entire framework ad hoc. >I don't see how its fatal to my theory.>It's selectedThat's how it's fatal. You selected it. You can't claim emergence of a thing you selected.>Find me a more minimum way to get 4d dynamics. I don't need to. Your theory is dead in the water and this demand is cope.>Lets look at machine language, 0's and 1's. Can I not claim there is 3d space encoded within the sequence if it projects a 3d space?Not intrinsically. The "1's and 0's" can be interpreted as 3D by the hardware depending on context. The sequence itself does not "encode" 3D.
>>17065637It's the provably minimal way to generate 3d space. If you want to challenge, find me a more minimal way. (you can't)is [math]\varnothing [/math] -> [math]\varnothing [/math] the most minimal first step? can you find something more minimal?There is something. Something is not nothing. There is distinction from nothingness. There is. There is not. Is. Not.By the mere act of reading these words you are forced to agree with the initial claim.Lets look at nature and deduce what principle we should be working towards. water runs downhill. Physics takes the least action. Therefore at each step of the way we ought to take the least action in order to construct physicsSo again, by trivial inspection, we search for the minimal rule that generates complex growth, as we are surrounded by complex growth, so that is what we look for. I'll add commentary this time.0 - no rule1A00 - no rule10A11A->A , B ->AA0 00 0 - no rule1 00 0A->AA1 10 0A -> ABAABABB...Trailing B's, boring rule1 00 1A->B, B-AABAB...simplest clock. no complexity, symmetrical. useful as an iterator or to set against.1 11 0A->AB, B->AAABABAABAAB...These are the most minimal rules. The fibonacci matrix is the only minimal rule that generates complex growth.Feel free to challenge this. Find a more minimal rule. I just listed them all though.
>>17065760>>17065760>So you are claiming time emerges from this sequence by redefining time in a way nobody uses and is not useful.I'm taking the minimal rule and seeing what it gives me. Does the minimal rule allow for minimal space? Yes. I then take this minimal space and seeing how it evolves in relationship to itself. 3d+1d = hopfion + substitution = dynamics> You are gaining information by the very act of projecting it onto 3DWhat information does a computer program gain by projecting from 0's and 1's into 3d? Wasn't the information already there?>You can't claim emergence of a thing you selected.Selected based on what criteria though? It selected on the same basis as everything else in the theory. It's selected through minimality, the same as everything else. I'm selecting the claim [math]\varnothing [/math] through minimality. I'm selecting the rule [math]\varphi [/math] through minimality. I'm selecting the minimal 2d topology and the minimal 3d space generated by the minimal rule, through minimality. You have to actually attack the claim by presenting something more minimal. And you can't.>I don't need to.No, it's because you can't. That is the most minimum way to 3d space and 4d dynamics.>Your theory is dead in the water and this demand is cope.My theory is correct. By constructing physics on the basis of minimality and irreducibility, you can accurately model reality.I think you're just coping because it's painstakingly obvious. You can whine all you want, its the truth>Not intrinsically. The "1's and 0's" can be interpreted as 3D by the hardware depending on context. The sequence itself does not "encode" 3D.Oh so 1's and 0's can be interpreted as 3D depending on the context?So the universe allows for that? So what's the grip then?
>>17066095>A->AB, B->A>the only minimal rule that generates complex growth.What's wrong with the following rule?>A->BA, B->A
>>17066114 A BA 1 1B 1 0and B AA 1 1B 0 1is the same rule, you just flipped itABAABABAABA
>>17066144>A->AB, B->A>A->BA, B->A>yes, these are the same rule, except for the different partIs that the hill you're going to die on?
>>17062306Are you using some program to make these or did you use chatgpt to cook up some script?
>>17066097We'll set aside the other things you're sorely confused about for a moment. Let me show you what emergence actually looks like.See pic related, the Mandelbrot set:Nobody knew what shape this was going to be before they ran the algorithm. Nobody "selected" a geometric structure to encode these values onto. They just ran the algorithm, mapped the output on the complex plane, and this is the structure that arose naturally. In this sense, you can say this fractal is truly emergent. Even still, you can't say 2D, itself, is emergent from this algorithm. The fractal emerges only when the algorithm meets the predefined concept of a complex plane.This is the opposite of what you did. You went looking for a class of structures which "minimally encodes" your series. That methodology precludes any claim you might have to emergence by definition. If you wanted to demonstrate emergence based on "minimalism" and "irreducibility," what you would do is define a a minimal, irreducible, algorithm based on your sequence and document the structure that forms *without any predetermined conclusions about what that shape might be.* then the structure can be called "emergent."But, just as the emergence seen in the Mandelbrot set does not imply the complex plane emerges from the algorithm, you still would not be able to say 3D space, itself, emerges from whatever algorithm you select.
