I've been preparing the terrain for this note. Below you can find some cryptic notes on Brian Arthur, Stephen Wolfram, the Wachowski brothers, David Lynch, and maybe a few others. What does all this mean?
Here I try to put my thoughts in a draft of a theory of everything.
Maybe when you were a kid, you heard about stone soup, or mud pies. You just take what is available to you and put it together, and voilà: You have a nice cake, or soup. Just combine, basic combinatorics will tell you that n objects can give you of the order of n! combinations. That is exponential; that means many.
Why everything?
Well why settle for less, if you can have an all encompassing idea about everything around you that would be nice, wouldn't it?
My theory, or draft of a theory; starts with the observation that we have dark materials, i.e. arrays of things that we don't know why they are there. Who ordered that? Asked Isidor I. Rabi .
Inside our genome, there are sequences that don't seem to serve any purpose, and maybe they don't. Inside our brain there are a bunch of neural nets with no known function, and on and on.
We get to 1998 and Adam Riess discovery that most of what exists is dark.
I see a pattern here.
The last straw is Brian Arthur's idea that old technology just collects in the garage. I'm not kidding you, I have a working McIntosh there in my garage.
That's it, I get it. In the beginning there was no purpose. The Big Bang was a useless baby. But Purpose is an Emergent Property. Once I uderstood that, I must've been thirteen or fourteen, I started a search for purpose. My purpose is to produce Intelligent Life. Now I have two beautiful creative intelligent kids, that give purpose to my life.
There you have it. This is the bare bones MP-TOE!
Posts
5 comments:
In the beginning there was no purpose.
I disagree.
My toy model goes like this.
Purpose is necessarily inherent in the energy of our perpetually evolving universe in the form of an unattainable goal, or a "final cause"... which is absolute balanced symmetry between matter and antimatter. The effort is futile because the imbalance, (flaw), is inherent, but then again, an inherent imbalance clearly defines the necessary impetus for the effort to reconcile the inequity, so all action is explained by the effort to satisfy the insatiable need.
"My" theory relies heavily on known facts and direct observation, rather that the unproven or unprovable assumptions of the cutting edge that Einstein's physics makes clear are absurd when the correct cosmological model is in place.
For example, the singularity and extraordinarily rapid inflation are not the most natural conclusion that is drawn when you project the expansion of the universe backwards to the point where inflationary theory becomes the necessary band-aid to conventional big bang theory in order to explain the flatness and horizon problems that only arise when you pre-assume the singularity.
In reality, the most natural conclusion that one would come to without pre-assuming the singularity is that the universe already had volume when we had our big bang. The final effect of matter generation in Einstein's model also derives that this will be the conclusion of our universe and the start of the next one when tension between ordinary matter and the vacuum becomes so great that the forces can no longer hold things together.
Matter generation from the vacuum in Einstein's cosmological model ultimately derives a perpetually evolving universe, but for another example:
It is a purely factual statement to say that a true biocentric constraint on the forces will necessarily derive an evolutionary universe, because this cosmological principle defines a direct connection between the structure of the universe and the evolutionary process.
This explains the arrow of time, the matter antimatter asymmetry, the "renormalization problem" the flatness problem, the horizon problem... etc... on down the line, while pointing out the why the absurdities of the cutting edge, like "Boltzmans brains" and multiverses... are just that... bizarre extensions of flawed concepts.
There are many obvious clues that were missed that become extremely apparent when you know the whole story that a final theory provides, and my observation is that modern theorists are better at pushing their belief system than they are at being honest detectives, which they really suck at... ;)
Let me clarify:
A true "anthropic" constraint necessarily defines a theory of everything because it defines a cosmological principle that explains why the forces are configured the way that they are, from first principles, and it also defines an evolutionary universe, because of the connection between the forces and the human evolutionary process.
In other words the structure mechanism of the universe is the same as ours, due to the anthropic constraint on the forces, which must include the human evolutionary process if it is a true cosmological principle.
Amazingly enough, it was purely "coincidental" that I also happenedd to discover the missed "hole that the hole left behind" in Einstein's physics because it derives the same history and fate for our universe.
The critical physics that gets resolved here is the negative mass absurdity that falls from Dirac's Equation, because the negative pressure vacuum mimics the characteristics of a negative mass object.
There were many excellent conversations involving John Baez and others that I was later involved with that prove that I resolved the the "negative mass puzzle" in the sci.physics-research forum a number of years ago.
Near simultaneously... I discovered the entropic connection to the anthropic anomaly that makes us "special"... technologically. I didn't even know about the anthropic principle at that time, but I knew exactly what it was about as soon as I saw them talking about the weak interpretation that is used in string theory, but it's not weak, and they hate me for that.
Island:
Obviously you have been going over these issues, more than I had.
All I am saying in an MP-TOE is that maybe dark energy and mass are just broken inventions.
Say toponium, the poor thing doesn't last, so just throw it in the garage, maybe a black hole, like my McIntosh. All those broken inventions are the dark matter (22%), the Dark Energy I guess will be that vacuum energy of everything that is in normal matter, and dark matter.
This may just be a way of understanding the all are black holes proposal of Professor Frampton for dark matter:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1001.2308
Okay, I wasn't sure if you were maybe asking me to do an outline or something... sorry.
Post a Comment