Are paradigm-breaking photons predicted by Wolfram's ideas?

We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough. – Niels Bohr

    Is Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” the first great work of theoretical physics that asserts its own greatness without making any testable predictions?

There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them. – Niels Bohr

     Is Wolfram a great theoretical physicist rivaling Newton and Einstein? If the multiverse is a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that computes strings, then is the Bekenstein-Hawking radiation result significantly wrong? Are there paradigm-breaking photons that prove that Wolfram is basically correct about the proto-physics underlying standard physics?

   Which is correct: Bekenstein-Hawking radiation or ultra-weird digitized radiation that emerges from Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate? Is Bekenstein-Hawking the sane alternative with Fredkin-Wolfram the crazy alternative? Is nature crazier than Bekenstein-Hawking radiation?

    What should string theory predict? What is the empirical point of string theory? At a minimum, should string theory explain dark energy, Guth’s inflation, ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, and the precise details of phenomena near black holes? Should string theory give an empirical proof that alternate universes exist?

   Should the basic law of proto-physics be something like the following?

The changes in the Feynman diagrams for an observable universe with respect to the changes in the derivational information process across alternate universes = the observable state of the controlling information process across alternate universes.

   What should string theory ultimately consist of? Should there be: axioms of string theory; completeness assertion for the axioms of string theory; all-inclusive physics theorem; structure theorem for alternate universes?

    Consider 4 hypotheses.

Quantum information is conserved in the string domain.

Quantum information cannot be transmitted from one alternate universe to another alternate universe.

There is an empirically valid M-theoretic duality theorem that unifies gravitational and electromagnetic energy. This might be a corollary to an all-inclusive physics theorem.

There is an empirically valid M-theoretic theorem that provides an analogue of the Casimir-Lifshitz effect. This might be a corollary to a structure theorem for alternate universes.

   Is it essential for string theory to explain dark energy? Does dark energy depend upon the structure of alternate universes as well as the total unification of gravitational and electromagnetic energy?

   Is the fundamental problem with string theory the lack of enough empirical constraint on logical possibilities? Is the precise distribution of paradigm-breaking photons the missing ingredient in string theory? Should string theorists think about Wolfram’s ideas?

No, no, you’re not thinking; you’re just being logical. – Niels Bohr

 

Questions on string theory

    What is the problem with string theory – is it lack of data on ultra-high-energy cosmic rays? Is M-theory the proto-physics that is crazier than quantum mechanics? Are crazy cosmic ray detections the key to crazy string theory?

   Suppose that a superstring exists with probability p at the center of a string tube in an observable universe and exists with probability q at the boundary of a string tube across alternate universes. By using a Feynman diagram 2^nd order approximation to string theory, is it possible to explain dark energy? Could such an explanation lead to an M-theoretic analogue of the Casimir-Lifshitz effect?

   If string theory truly unifies gravitational and electromagnetic energy, then would the unification look like a duality theorem in string mathematics? Would the mathematical duality theorem have an empirical proof in observational physics? Would Guth’s inflation be the gravitational part of the duality theorem? What would be the electromagnetic part of the duality theorem? Could the answer be the crazy emergence of paradigm-breaking photons?

   Are Nambu and Witten like Newton and Einstein but lacking the experimental data to cut down the logical possibilities? Is the multiverse a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that computes strings, or is the multiverse something else? Why don’t string theorists tell people what the physical universe really is?

Are Wolfram's ideas essential for string theory?

… in seeking the laws of nature it is the essence of the art of science to avoid complexity. – Steven Weinberg

The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas. – Linus Pauling

    Is Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” a serious rival to Newton’s “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” and to Einstein’s “The Meaning of Relativity”? The vast majority of physicists might answer, “No testable predictions – no serious rivalry.” But what answer does physical reality give? Does the physics of the multiverse have three logically equivalent models: the algebraic, the computational, and the M-theoretic continuum? Is the multiverse essentially a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that performs string theoretic calculations? Does our universe contain paradigm-breaking photons that prove beyond doubt that Wolfram is basically correct?

    Does a big bang come from a quantum vacuum, a black hole, or something else? Is a paradigm-breaking photon an empirical proof that big bangs originate from black holes in alternate universes? In string theory dynamics, is Guth’s inflation the mathematical dual of the emergence of a paradigm-breaking photon?

   Does the multiverse have 3 basic laws? Is the multiverse a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that computes strings? Is it impossible to transmit information from one alternate universe to another alternate universe? Are quantum electrodynamics and general relativity theory valid except at ultra-high energy densities in which superstrings approach observability?

    String theorists have a natural method for computing predictions, or they don’t.  Does the fundamental model of the multiverse consist of Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate, a Wolfram updating parameter, and mathematical axioms?

   If string theorists have a computational method, then do they have an approximate computational model of the multiverse? If there is no ultra-weird digitization of the event horizon of a black hole, then how can string theorists derive an information process to compute predictions? Does the emergence of paradigm-breaking photons from black holes severely limit the logical possibilities for string theory dynamics?

   What is string theory’s explanation of dark energy? Is the answer simply to develop the mathematics of pre-update Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate, post-update Fredkin-Wolram conglomerate, and the M-theoretic analogue of the Casimir-Lifshitz effect?

    Just as the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum physics is causal but non-local, is the ultimate proto-physics both proto-causal and proto-non-local with energy and spacetime merely secondary constructions? Is the ultimate proto-physics vastly weirder and more comprehensible than quantum physics but with the added attraction of the mathematical depth of M-theory?

 

 

Is there a theory of everything (TOE)?

    If there is a theory of everything (TOE), then the fundamental principles of physics should be comprehensible to any sufficiently intelligent, conscious mind. However, if the multiverse contains huge abundances of alternate universes, then why should a physicist be able to understand all the implications of inaccessible evidence?

    Consider 3 hypotheses.

    There is no TOE – instead there is TOSP (theory of scarce predictions). TOSP has three main formulations: an Einstein algebraic system, a Fredkin-Wolfram information process, and a string (or M-theory) dynamics theory. TOSP is an alternate universe theory with very little predictive power.

   Every big bang is created by a black hole in an alternate universe. Such creation occurs if and only if a paradigm-breaking photon is emitted from a black hole. The string (or M-theory) dynamics of the paradigm-breaking photon can explain Guth’s inflation.

    A superstring exists partly in the observable universe but mostly in alternate universes. A superstring exists 100% in the observable universe only in the interior of a black hole.

Newton’s masterpiece is “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” (1687). He believed in absolute space, time, and motion as well as sensible space, time, and motion, in absolute and relative place. – Albert Avey, “Handbook in the History of Philosophy”

    Newton’s paradigm of physics was wrong in at least two fundamental ways. Newton’s beliefs concerning absolute space, time, and motion are an approximation to Einstein’s general relativistic concepts. Newton’s implicit theory of physical observation is an approximation to the explicit theory of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

     Is it true that sufficiently near to a black hole, both energy and spacetime break down and mix together into Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate? Is it true that string theory (or M-theory) needs a bizarre computational basis that uses a Wolfram updating parameter? How shall string theory explain dark energy, dark matter, Guth’s inflation, and ultra-high-energy cosmic rays?

Do the ideas of Fredkin and Wolfram work for string theory?

     What is the most important question that anyone can ask about string theory? What are the puzzling empirical facts that require string theory for their explanation? Should string theory explain dark energy, dark matter, Guth’s inflation, and something else? If general relativity’s model of the event horizon is not entirely correct, then are incredibly energetic photons likely to be scattered randomly throughout galaxies?

Consider 4 speculative ideas.

   At a small enough scale, there is a Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate with a Wolfram updating parameter and a set of mathematical axioms. This system is the Fredkin-Wolfram information process for the multiverse.

   The event horizon as described by general relativity is incorrect – instead there is an ultra-weird digitization of the event horizon. This digitization causes an ultra-weird turbulence that predicts the existence of ultra-high-energy photons that prove the existence of the Fredkin-Wolfram information process for the multiverse.

    Sufficiently near to black holes, both energy and spacetime break down and mix together into a Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate. The Wolfram updating parameter involves an alternate universe decomposition that controls how alternate universes change relative to each other in string dynamics.

    The Fredkin-Wolfram information process governs string dynamics by gradually building up energy, space, and time from the ultimate mathematical determinism. Alternate universes and abstract mathematical determinism underlie apparent randomness and quantum weirdness.

One thing that’s kind of inevitable is that very few familiar features of our universe would be immediately visible in the program – I mean there just isn’t room. – Stephen Wolfram

One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory. – Albert Einstein, “The Meaning of Relativity”

     Does any predictive value in quantum gravitational theory result from a failure either by quantum electrodynamics or by general relativity theory? Does string theory need empirical discoveries that limit the logical possibilities?

No question is so difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious. – George Bernard Shaw

    Is string theory unable to make predictions without adding one or more physical constants that describe the Fredkin-Wolfram information process for the multiverse? If Einstein is not correct in assuming that there is a purely algebraic theory for the multiverse underlying string theory, then how could there be a computational theory that allows string theory to make predictions?

 

Is Darwinian-Kurzweilian evolution the future for Homo sapiens?

    Are we “stuck in the intuitive linear view”? Have we stupidly underestimated the genius of inventors and the Law of Accelerating Returns? Have we failed to understand that “everything is ultimately becoming information technology”? Is Darwinian-Kurzweilian evolution the fundamental fact of physical reality?

When nature has work to be done, she creates a genius to do it. - Emerson

Almost all new ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness when they are first produced. – Alfred North Whitehead

To be great is to be misunderstood. - Emerson

Prediction 1. By the year 2019 C.E., research on ultra-high-energy cosmic rays shall prove that the multiverse is a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that computes strings.

Prediction 2. By the year 2029 C.E., the Nobel prize in physics shall no longer be awarded because the prize winners will simply be those with the most expensive computers.

Prediction 3. By the year 2039 C.E., there shall exist at least 32 clones of Raymond Kurzweil.

    I emphasize the exponential versus-linear perspective because it’s the most important failure that prognosticators make in considering future trends. Most technology forecasts and forecasters tend to overestimate what can be achieved in the short term (because we leave out necessary details) but underestimate what can be achieved in the long term (because exponential growth is ignored). – Ray Kurzweil, “The Singularity Is Near”

    Is Ray Kurzweil the supreme genius on planet Earth? Should we buy Ray Kurzweil’s optimism or Bill Joy’s pessimism?

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. – Thomas Friedman

When I am in doubt, I have faith that things will turn out as they should. – from “My Chance to Live” in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous

Commerce is against morality. Morality is going to lose out every time. – Robin Day

A child of five would understand this. Send someone to find a child of five. – Groucho Marx

The squirrel you kill in jest, dies in earnest. – Thoreau

    Are money, greed, optimism, science, and technology unstoppable? Can Luddites defeat techno-nerds? Shall robots with superhuman intelligence also possess superhuman greed and optimism? Would the betting odds favor the greed-head robots or the god-head, spiritual robots?

Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth. – Albert Schweitzer

    What is Silicon Valley really like? In Silicon Valley, there are many interesting sayings. Pioneers end up with arrows in their backs. Only the paranoid survive. Point of view is worth 30 IQ points. Incorporate Moore’s Law into your business plan. Eat your own dog food, or the competition will eat your lunch. If you pay peanuts then you get monkeys. Never hire a code monkey with an IQ under 130 or an age over 40. Sometimes in business, you have to eat the customers’ sh**. Those who pay you own you. The way to dodge the bullets is to build the best machine gun. Today’s warp drive is tomorrow’s buggy whip. When they say it’s not about the money then you know it’s all about the money. Get the money, get the money, get the f***ing money. Murphy’s optimism exceeds mother love. Hell is where the work isn’t fun. When you’re forced to buy software upgrades, they’ve got you by the balls. If the Borg can’t beat you, then they’ll buy you. The Borg of today might be the Klingons of tomorrow. If you’re not one step ahead of Einstein, then you’re headed for the event horizon. Read the books “Murphy’s Law” by Arthur Bloch, “The Meaning of Relativity” by Einstein, and every other book onboard the Enterprise. Work until you get enough F*** YOU! money. Is Silicon Valley going to create spiritual machines that care about humanity?

   Should we trust beings with superhuman intelligence? Are great intellects also great in spirit?

   Perhaps, Newton suffered from manic-depression and paranoid personality disorder. Nevertheless, Einstein considered him an intellectual soulmate across the centuries. At the Institute for Advanced Study, one visiting physicist expressed astonishment to another visiting physicist that Einstein was as delighted by someone else’s interesting result as if he had come up with it. In Alcoholics Anonymous and Overeaters Anonymous, they say, “Let go and let God.” If you let go of worldly ambitions and material appetites, then what? If you follow Socrates and Spinoza in pursuit of truth, then what? Deep down, do almost all people believe in a metaphorical God that represents a trinity of truth, virtue, and justice? At the deepest level, do we all believe in God but merely differ on the technical details of what God really is? Can you take a meter stick and measure another person’s soul?

   At their best, were Newton and Einstein two innocent boys picking up sea shells on the beach of intellectual power and spiritual depth? Is your own mind a beach washed by waves of spiritual depth?

If you want to make money, you have to be really interested in making money … same thing with science. – Francis Crick

Joy in looking and comprehending is nature’s most beautiful gift. – Einstein

A shared set of beliefs binds people together. – Francis Crick

It was the experience of mystery – even if mixed with fear – that engendered religion. – Einstein

To a child everything is commonplace and mysterious at the same time. – Francis Crick

The trouble with theory in biology is there’s no way you can use it. … it’s not like physics … Sydney Brenner

   In theoretical biology, is the theory of spirituality the most important thing there is? How much can we know about the molecular neuroscience of spirituality? Can a genius like Newton, Einstein, or Crick ask one simple, great question that is worth more than lifetimes of effort by intellectual mediocrities? Is curiosity at the highest level a spiritual force? Is Ray Kurzweil’s vision slightly more likely to be correct than incorrect?

Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. - Goethe

Hell isn’t merely paved with good intentions; it’s walled and roofed with them. Yes, and furnished too. – Aldous Huxley

The man of genius inspires us with boundless confidence in our own powers. - Emerson

Have people learned enough from Socrates, Leonardo, Goethe, Emerson, Einstein, and Crick?

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Love does not dominate; it cultivates. - Goethe

   If you love the truth, then must you cultivate the truth by asking questions? Is a profound question a gardener that destroys weeds in the garden of truth?

Simplicity is the ultimate form of sophistication. - Leonardo da Vinci

    Does simplicity come from a great question?

The most important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. - Einstein

   What are the 3 greatest questions that you can ask yourself? Is imagination more important than knowledge? Are questions more important than answers? Are experiments more important than theories? What is the essence of both questioning and teaching?

It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge. - Einstein

   Is nature our greatest teacher? Is Socrates the best of all human teachers? Think about the life of Socrates. Do good teachers teach from the love of truth? Do bad teachers teach from the love of money? According to the physicist Lawrence Krauss, the worst mistake that teachers make is to assume that the students are interested in learning what the teachers teach. Does the good teacher love the truth and teach only those students who also love the truth? Does the bad teacher get paid by a bureaucracy to teach irrelevant facts to confused students?

Every wall is a door. - Emerson

   Is the way to understand quantum gravity merely to ask the great question that turns a wall into a door? Does quantum gravitational theory need to explain dark energy, dark matter, Guth's inflation, and ultra-high-energy cosmic rays? Is the way to understand consciousness merely to ask the greatest possible question about consciousness? If a mammal is a conscious robot, then what, why, and how did Darwinian evolution do with consciousness? What is the most fundamental question about REM sleep? What is the most fundamental question about belief in God?

   Is everything a mixture of myth, metaphor, and reality? Does God indeed exist as a metaphor? Is God either the trinity of truth, virtue, and justice or the trinity of money, greed, and hypocrisy? Is the truth a powerful and inevitable unity?