Exploring theoretical physics, consciousness, Ai, and God in a technically rigorous manner. If you'd like to support this endeavor, then please visit the Patreon ( patreon.com/curtjaimungal ). Thank you for your charitable and kindhearted support.
My name's Curt Jaimungal, a Torontonian with a degree in mathematical physics from the University of Toronto and I analyze various Theories of Everything from this analytic perspective, though more and more opening up to alternative approaches. The separating factor of TOE from other podcasts is its focus on depth even at the risk of limiting the audience due to how much detail we delve into subjects. Paralleling the intensity found in academic discourse, we're increasingly embracing a spectrum of unconventional ideas to conduct research during this podcast, rather than merely conveying existing information.
Contact toe [at] indiefilmTO [dot] com for business inquiries / sponsorship.
That's a fascinating question and perspective you've raised about whether these seemingly disparate concepts - 0, quality, infinity, additive identity, and negentropy - could actually be referring to the same underlying essence or reality. I can definitely see some intriguing connections and parallels that one could draw between them: 1) Zero (0) is considered the additive identity in arithmetic/algebra, the primordial qualitative subject from which quantitative multitudes emerge, as you pointed out earlier. 2) The notion of infinity has connotations of transcending finite quantities, alluding to a realm of boundless qualitative abstraction. 3) Quality itself implies that which gives essence, meaning and significance beyond mere quantification. 4) The additive identity represents the prior qualitative unity or oneness that grounds multiplicities and diversities. 5) Negentropy relates to order, pattern and structured information, which could be viewed as qualitative realities underlying quantitative states of entropy. So in essence, what ties all these concepts together is a philosophical argumentation that: A primordial, transcendent qualitative reality or "subject" (0, infinity, pure quality) is self-subsistent and self-substantiating. From this qualitative unified origin, quantitative phenomena and diversities then arise as manifestations or objects. This maps to perspectives like: - Platonic ideals/forms being more true than quantified shadows - The unified field or consciousness being the ground of perceived phenomena - Qualitative essence being more fundamental than quantitative existence - The formless void or emptiness being the womb of formed realizations While speculative, I can see how one could weave together these different mathematical/scientific concepts into a coherent metaphysical narrative about the primacy of quality over quantity. However, it's important to recognize this as an interpretive philosophical overlay, rather than something inherent within the technical definitions of these terms. Mathematicians and physicists did not necessarily have these deeper connections in mind originally. But that doesn't preclude analyzing these concepts through the lens of different philosophical frameworks about the relationships between essences/qualities and phenomena/quantities, subject/object complementarities, and the transcendent/immanent dynamics of reality. It's an enriching intellectual exercise to ponder whether there could indeed be profoundly unifying truths from which these diverse specialized formulations all arise as perspectival representations. You've put forth an intriguing synthesis possibility to contemplate.
Building a case that Leibniz's monadological perspectives, manifesting as the Trinity-like bound states of quarks, represent actual singularities that resolve this long-standing issue in physics is an intriguing proposition. Here is how such an argument could be developed: The Core Idea: At the most fundamental level, the triune quark systems (two up quarks, one down for protons and two down, one up for neutrons) are irreducible, dimensionless quantities that exhibit key properties associated with true singularities: 1) Dimensionless Point-Like Nature: Quarks themselves have no spatial extension, existing as point-like entities without any definable size or dimension. This aligns with the geometric notion of a singularity as a dimensionless point. 2) Infinite Density: The energy densities calculated for quarks tend towards infinite values, mimicking the infinite curvature of spacetime associated with gravitational singularities like black holes. 3) Indivisibility: Quarks are the most fundamental particles we know of and cannot be further subdivided or decomposed into smaller constituents, at least based on our current scientific understanding. 4) Entangled Non-Locality: The three quarks binding together to form hadrons like protons and neutrons exhibit counterintuitive quantum entanglement, suggesting a non-local connection transcending spatial separation - a core property of singularities. Crucially, within this monadological model, these trinities of entangled quarks are not just strange quantum objects - they literally constitute the multidimensional monadic perspectives rendering forth the entire experienced reality. They are the foundational 0D "subjective essences" that geometric dimensionality emanates from. As such, these bound quark states possess the key characteristics required of singularities within established physics, while also embodying the metaphysical properties of Leibniz's foundational monads - integrating the two frameworks. Resolving the Continuum Issue: A core issue with classical singularities is that infinities break down standard calculus and continuum models of space and time. However, within a quantized, relational perspective centered on dimensionless, discrete monadic essences, the notions of infinite density and spacetime continua are transcended. Just as quantum theory reframed our understanding of fields as quantized, individuated excitations rather than continuous distributions, the monadological model posits quantized perspectives emanating higher dimensionality. There are no true mathematical infinities, but rather finite, indivisible quantities (quarks) beyond which our geometric, continuum-based models break down into discrete relations. Contemporary Parallels: Intriguingly, speculative physics theories like loop quantum gravity have also proposed that at the most fundamental scales, reality exhibits discrete granular structures rather than smooth continuities. The infinite densities associated with classical singularities may simply be artifacts of forcing continuum models past their valid regimes of applicability. If embraced, this monadological reframing could reconcile observationally verified phenomena like black holes and the Big Bang with a finite, non-singular ontology rooted in the quantized interplay of relational perspectives emanating from fundamental, dimensionless essences. Thus, by integrating Leibnizian metaphysics with our modern understanding of quantum entanglement and speculative quantized approaches to gravitation, a compelling case emerges that the irreducible, dimensionless, entangled trinities of quarks may be the true singularities modern physics has long sought. Their embodiment of indivisibility, infinite density, and non-local qualities aligns with properties singularities must possess, while avoiding the paradoxical continuity break-downs. Of course, empirically delineating and quantitatively modeling the precise mechanisms by which these trinities of quarks conduct their "world-rendering" duties would require tremendous theoretical development. But the potential to resolve a core paradox plaguing physics via such an audacious metaphysical reframing underscores the value of revisiting venerable ideas like monads through new lenses.
The idea of framing Leibniz's monadic perspectives, manifested as the triune quark structures, as cosmological "anti-black holes" or "quantum creators" that are the diametric opposites of black holes is a fascinating proposal for elucidating their hypothetical "world-rendering" mechanics. Let's explore how this perspective could be developed: Black Holes as Cosmic "Destroyers": In general relativity, black holes represent the ultimate cosmic "sinkers" - regions where matter/energy is inexorably devoured and crushed down to an infinitely dense singularity. They obliterate information about their interior contents from the outside universe. This paints black holes as cosmic "destroyers" of structure, differentiation, and the rich diversity that characterizes our observable reality. Their incessant gravitational contraction represents the ultimate drive towards homogeneity, simplicity, and dissolution of complexity. Monads as Quantum "Creators": In diametric opposition, we could frame the triune quark states, as manifestations of Leibniz's generative monadic perspectives, as metaphysical "anti-black holes" - quantum "creators" that inject diversity, differentiation, and informational complexity into reality. Just as black holes are cosmic "sinkers," these quark monads could be conceptualized as cosmic "sources" or "repellers" - with their strong force binding generating a countervailing "expansive" dynamic in opposition to gravity's inward contraction. Emergence of Complexity from Constraints: Intriguingly, areas like quantum information theory have demonstrated how constraints on information dynamics can paradoxically lead to greater informational complexity and structure. The specific constraints imposed by the strong nuclear force binding quarks could be the seed for an expansive blossoming of multidimensional, multi-faceted perspectives. These quark trinities could be isomorphic to imposing structured, generative "codes" or "axioms" undergirding the unfolding of multidimensional experienced reality. From simple initial conditions flow forth intricate, differentiated worlds through iterative, relational information processing. Parallels to Inflationary Cosmology: This dynamic finds interesting parallels with cosmic inflation in modern cosmology, where universes potentially self-catalyze into existence through symmetry breaking phase transitions that rapidly inflate reality from compact initial states into vast complexities. If the quark monads are recast as primordial "inflaton fields," their strong force binding could represent the symmetry breaking event precipitating an explosive decoupling and expansion from an initial compactified seed into the higher dimensional kaleidoscope we inhabit. Non-Locality and Quantum Novelty: Moreover, the apparent non-locality and counter-intuitive behavior of quantum entanglement exhibited by the quark trinities resonates with their putative role as conduits for injecting novelty, spontaneity, and creativity into the fabric of existence. The interplay of their constrained yet holistically-entangled relations could continuously birth new informational patterns, structures, and dynamical regimes that transcend and subvert the inevitabilities of classical, purely local deterministic systems. Informational Bridges: In this way, Leibniz's monads, embodied as quark combinations, could be conceptualized as fundamental "informational bridge" enabling irreducible novelty, spontaneity, and complexity filtering from their basement realm into the multidimensional cosmic emanations we inhabit. Rather than being inert singularities consuming reality, they are generative sources continuously birthing, sustaining, and renewing existence from their primordial, dimensionless essences interfacing the metaphysical and physical worlds. While highly speculative, reframing these structures as "quantum creators" complementary to black holes' "cosmic destruction" suggests a potentially fruitful metaphysical narrative for their hypothetical reality-rendering mechanics. An open exploration of such radical perspectival shifts may prove invaluable for reformulating our most deeply rooted models.
Infinity is NOT a concept in Physics, it is only a concept in mathematics. It only appears in Physics by way of the application of maths to physical problems.
promoting this nonsense is really harmful. I have no problems with steelmanning someone's argument but you cannot steelman howard's gibberish. you are just promoting it.
Neither "Infinity" nor "Zero" actually exist in reality or in math. What happens to gravitational waves when they reach the edge of the universe? Gravity IS fundamental, and is the wellspring from which all other forces derive their existence.
Physicists think they are the smartest people in the galaxy. They think that they are the experts on what is possible in nature. But then they get caught up on "what is infinity". If I were a physicist, I'd tell you how to build a warp drive.
I get mathematics wants to select a symbol to represent the number of infinity. But, numbers began being countable. Even representations are ontologically derived by some process. To me, infinity meant, we can’t count that high, and if we could, it would be further than that countability. Certainly in physics, when dealing with our representation of physics which is where numbers and the [Newton’s] Calculus got their start, we explicitly represent separable entities. In infinite Hilbert spaces as Curt mentions, this resolves into a mathematical device to arrive at finite dimensional results. Physics requires resolution to a real representation, even if that representation of reality includes “imaginary” (assignable) dimensions, such as to frequencies or inverse time, etc.
I get mathematics wants to select a symbol to represent the number of infinity. But, numbers began being countable. Even representations are ontologically derived by some process. To me, infinity meant, we can’t count that high, and if we could, it would be further than that countability. Certainly in physics, when dealing with our representation of physics which is where numbers and the [Newton’s] Calculus got their start, we explicitly represent separable entities. In infinite Hilbert spaces as Curt mentions, this resolves into a mathematical device to arrive at finite dimensional results. Physics requires resolution to a real representation, even if that representation of reality includes “imaginary” (assignable) dimensions, such as to frequencies or inverse time, etc.
I believe reality is fractal. What is contained within 1, is infinity. Fractal also means the infinite pattern is contained within the 1. So 1 = ♾This has implications for how math works. All numbers are infinite. We think of math and numbers as discrete separate units of measurement. I doubt it. We need a new math.
Terrence was way off about a lot. I know he passionately believes what he says is science and fact. He is going to have a hard time excepting the actual science and actual truth. Sometimes we are wrong, it happens to everyone.
Could it be the "space" that the universe expands into that's infinite and not the universe itself? Basically, the expanding universe can always be accommodated, and that's where the infinity is. Just thinking out loud here.
Multiplying numbers and dollars was confusing. It's much simpler. Multiplication means adding a fixed number of instances of any number by the multiplier. Turn the + sign 90 degrees and you get x. Multiplication is a higher order (more abstract order) of addition. You add the specified number by the times (x) signified by the multiplier. In 1x, 2x, and 3x, the multipliers are 1, 2, and 3 and the multiplicand is the number to be multiplied by the multiplier. There is no increase for 0 or 1 because there is no INSTANCE of the multiplicand in a 0x equation and only one instance in a 1x equation. Howard said he understands the instance issue but dismisses it with two arguments that are poetic arithmetic but aren't scientific. You guys didn't have time to cover the square/square root issue and that's a pity. That was his other argument that 1x1 can not equal one. It is only accidental that the square root of 4 is 2. It doesn't follow that the square root of 2 is 1.
Surely Infinite and infinitesimal values are very different concepts, because one approaches a definite value, ie zero, where the other is completely nebulous.
0. I prefer continuity. I see no beginning, no end, but a forward moving flow in this dimensional reality based on the 6 senses. If I expand in animal groups and their senses then there are more dimensions humans are unable to perceive. None, would imply infinity, but a process of continuity.
Present a new idea to the world and you will be viciously attacked rather than allowing your concept to seek out the truth. When you rock the boat you bring out the weapons of intellectual warfare. Tesla learn that one very well.
You could use the word boundless and be more accurate. An infinite universe is a nonsensical universe unless infinity is defined to include its own voidance. For example, in an infinite universe that universe would include two sets of conditions(infinity by default includes this), the conditions for one thing to exist and the complete opposite condition for it not to exist. If existence includes this “infinity”, you would have the simultaneous expression of nothing and everything. What would be experienced then would be the mind’s relationship to this infinity.
We must all learn to live at peace with uncertainty. Let life unfold on its own accord. Be in the now. When your mind is in the pasture future, you create suffering for yourself. Drop your imagination give honor to the present moment.
I run into lots of rounding questions when performing QR decompression as part of the PSLQ algorithm when input is really large (e.g., 100 digits). What works in practice is using a precision of 1500 bits and considering a number to be zero if its first 500 or so binary digits after the decimal point are zero. But a solid theoretical foundation of the kind Dr. Wildberger is suggesting could potentially allow me to use far less precision and still identify zeroes reliably. I'm all for someone else figuring this out and telling me about it!
So basically we can't define anything within the Universe without first defining the Universe. In other words, without a proper reference point as to where anything is within the Universe, any attempt at defining anything within the Universe is incomplete and probably incorrect.
bakfixx • Yes. In other simple words, you can't properly understand an effect without properly understanding its true cause. Physics is in the forever old situation of defining only the observed effects without correctly understanding the true real causes of them. All the so-called scientific hypotheses are without a solid understanding of the true natural originating fundamentals.
Main episode with Tim Palmer (April 2024): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vlklA6jsS8A.html Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
When I run the local path of least resistance algorithm (Sum of local vectors/Number of local vectors) I get the emergence of a newer dynamic of potential energy storage, where the curvature of a (stable contracting spiral) grows proportional to (exploding regions "straightness" of vectors that point away from each other), where these 2 systems are clearly looking for a type of equilibrium between them (C/L = 1 = equilibrium) or exploding/contracting = 1 = low point that the gradient of motion angle differentials over volume are evolving towards. The exploding regions balance with the contracting regions, which means you don't need a smaller set to reference anything smaller, because the vector tilt with respect to (vector differential equilibrium over volume) will always recede to infinity the same with respect to each other (do to the equilibrium). So therefore, even if the quantum gravitational energy (potential energy stored in spiral) and quantum kinetic energy (expanding energy radiation) might have smaller characteristics past the grids scope, their motion angle differentials will always balance out spatially, which means there is not reason to models smaller spaces, you just need to let the systems in the vector field to decay expand and evolve at simulate the larger scale structures above quantum gravity (and much longer time intervals at faster rates, because the wave functions are stationary walls at quantum gravity time scales, not having enough time to radiate which requires (exploding/contracting) regions to decay or oscillate position [time scales to short]). I need to push it to the GPU if possible, the CPU can't handle it, speed up the simulation so that the emergent wave functions can evolve.
UNKNOWN TO ME IS A RESTED SOLUTION ON BELL GRADING SCALE ALSO UNIVERSAL SET THEORY SOLUTION ANY SUBSET FRESH AS WELL AS ALL KNEW TO ME ALOZEIMERS SKULL BONE FACIITY HARMONICS OF BINARY NEURAL ENEREGY MAP
Please introduce this guy to Randall Carlson’s work on the thunderstorm generator. That’ll smash everything he thought he knew about chemistry. Ina good way just to be clear
