Thread

I wish it was more interoperable, but due to heavy use of LaTeX formulas the only client that properly renders it right now is TeXstr.

nostr:nprofile1qqs9njktmqadt322myw6eag6f8qxuzl0wv9vpe7zxkn0d73fhy3s7qspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmnyqyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv87pygq

Please help share. This makes a lot of sense and is mind-blowing. nostr:nevent1qqs0clwuh48ts88wr4kfdvx24hxmuwutcmetlsk5fef0kjaf02jaapcpzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0qgsrkwjz6dx0pg2q95vd2dkf62kzavwxqxdfz5a72uyyeqt96xfwxfgrqsqqqqqphavjxg

👀

Casually publishes a paper on nostr... Get this man a peer-review! It's above my pay-grade but def interesting stuff! nostr:nevent1qqs0clwuh48ts88wr4kfdvx24hxmuwutcmetlsk5fef0kjaf02jaapcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyqan5sknfnc2zspdrr2ndjwj4shtr3spn2g480jhppxgzew3jt3j2qcyqqqqqqgevd6dp

idk what it means but "quantize the observer" is a banger nostr:nevent1qqs0clwuh48ts88wr4kfdvx24hxmuwutcmetlsk5fef0kjaf02jaapcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsrkwjz6dx0pg2q95vd2dkf62kzavwxqxdfz5a72uyyeqt96xfwxfgrqsqqqqqp7sycy6

I am not a mathematician to understand this paper, but evolution of information system is the essence of Wolfram Physics. Anything to cooperate on?

They should stop looking at the problem from the wrong angle, there is no need for rewriting rules, the structure of the informational network as a 2-category is enough to explain physics

My bot thinks your article is a book and it explained it to me like I’m 5. Imagine you have two super-duper big puzzles that smart people have been trying to put together for a long, long time, but they just don't fit perfectly [1]: 1. **The "Big Stuff" Puzzle (Gravity):** This puzzle is about **why big things pull on each other**, like how the Earth pulls you down to your chair, or how planets go around the sun. That's called **gravity**. 2. **The "Super Tiny Stuff" Puzzle (Quantum Mechanics):** This puzzle is about **super tiny, tiny things** – smaller than you can even see, like a speck of dust in the air. These tiny things act really, really weird and jumpy, not like big things at all [1]. That's called **quantum mechanics**. For a long time, it's been like trying to put a square piece (gravity) into a round hole (quantum weirdness), and it just causes a lot of headaches and paradoxes [1]. But this special book has a **brand new idea** to make them fit! [2] Instead of trying to make the *space around us* bumpy or jumpy, like many other smart people try to do, this book says we should think about **you** (and me, and anything that can see or measure things) as being "quantum" or "limited" in how we gather information [2]. **Here's the super simple way the book tries to solve the quantum gravity puzzle:** * **You're like a tiny, limited information-collector:** Imagine your brain can only hold a **finite (limited) number of puzzle pieces** at one time [3]. You can't see *everything* everywhere all at once, and your view is always from *your* spot [3, 4]. * **Everyone sees a little bit differently, but they agree where it matters:** If you look at a toy, and your friend looks at the same toy, you both might see slightly different things about it, but you'll agree it's the same toy [4]. The book calls this "local consistency of finite information" [2, 4]. It means our little pieces of information must agree where they overlap [4]. * **Space, time, and gravity are like magic tricks that *pop out* from these simple rules!** [5, 6] * If you try to gather information by going around in a circle (like walking around a tree and looking at it from all sides), sometimes a tiny bit of information gets "lost" or "jumbled" when you try to put all those views together perfectly [7, 8]. * This "lost" or "jumbled" information, or this "curvature" that builds up, is what makes space bend and causes **gravity** [8, 9]. So, gravity isn't a direct pull; it's more like a slight twist or jumble in how all these tiny bits of information fit together when you try to make sense of them in a loop [8, 9]. * And because you can only see a **limited** amount of information at a time, there's a **speed limit** to how fast information can spread or how fast things can happen [10, 11]. This is like how fast light goes! [11] * **No completely broken spots:** Because information is always "locally consistent" and has limits, this idea says there are **no completely broken or infinitely messy spots** in the universe, like the "singularities" some theories predict in black holes [12]. Everything always stays within a certain "puzzle-piece limit" or "resolution" [12]. * **Solving old puzzles:** This new way of thinking helps solve tricky puzzles like why a cat can be "both alive and dead" in a quantum box (Schrödinger's cat) or what happens to information that falls into a black hole [4, 13, 14]. It says that information is always preserved in each *local* view, even if it's jumbled or hidden from a *different* view [13-15]. So, the big point is that instead of making space bumpy to match tiny things, this idea says that **how *we* see and collect information** is bumpy and limited, and all the laws of physics, including gravity, just pop out naturally from those simple rules about information [2, 16]. It's like the universe is built from tiny, agreement-seeking puzzle pieces of information! [5]

I am trying to read your paper as a regular IT guy with basic knowledge of physics. I struggle to understand the concepts of frames, information and resolution. Do you maybe have a YouTube channel where you present your theory for general public?

You can think of frames as just quantum systems, but understood here as local frames of reference. Relations is just local change of basis operation, that transform one frame into another that is adjacent in the network.

It seems like getting people to understand my theory will take longer than coming up with it. nostr:nevent1qqs0clwuh48ts88wr4kfdvx24hxmuwutcmetlsk5fef0kjaf02jaapcprfmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctv9ukq4vpxx5

👀 nostr:nevent1qqs0clwuh48ts88wr4kfdvx24hxmuwutcmetlsk5fef0kjaf02jaapcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygpm8fpdxn8s59qz6xx4xmya9tpwk8rqrx532wl9wzzvs9jaryhry5psgqqqqqqs9lz05r

Wild stuff. How long did you sit with this? And how long did it take you to write it all up? It's quite beautiful.

I am big fan of the Information-Entropy approach and agree with Information/Geometry approach. This may be of interest to you.-https://www.linkedin.com/posts/chineduecheruo_i-noticed-an-error-in-the-equations-i-previously-activity-7332407014460964864--JHw?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&rcm=ACoAAAAIISIB8mPRUfge1GHR6Z-sqfE0tiv6GRg

The ideas had been in the back of my mind for years, but everything clicked just three weeks ago. Once I figured out the Bures distance, everything else followed naturally. I was shocked. I only convinced myself I wasn’t going crazy when I saw how well the coupling constants' entropy budget aligned with experimental data. These past two weeks have been mostly about rewriting and refining the explanation.

ok buddy. this touches the heart of my profession, so I feel compelled to add my take as a warning and maybe the entertainment of the others here. the author won't agree and I won't be compelled to start a discussion with them for obv reasons. I also don't mean this personally but I'm sure you know the feeling of responsibility when you see a scammer: you call them out. so this is for anyone else: a self-published solution to QG (quantum gravity) or a TOE (theory of everything) is a well-known red flag indicator for mental illness in the field of physics. there are many obscure publications like this on the internet. MAAAAAANY. they often "solve the universe". not a single one deserves your attention. if they did, they'd be published in a peer-reviewed journal like 99.99% of all real science, including the revolutionary stuff. and you'd be hearing about them from a nobel-prize committee, not on nostr. this one, like so many others, is just confused poetry dressed in complicated words to make it sound legit. so here are dr. calle's red flag indicators for recognizing "theory of everything" mental illness papers on the internet: - single author: even Einstein needed help - no peer review: charlatans self-publish and often say they get censored etc. but in fact nobody would ever publish this stuff. imagine being mentioned as the reviewer of an article like this, it could end your career (remember, the author usually doesn't have a career to lose to begin with) - no previous publications: sure, your first paper solves the universe. ordinary wednesday in Bitcoin. - no affiliation: no university or real insition behind it (nobody would employ this person). sometimes a bs affiliation of a made up one-person "institute" with a complicated name is used. - weird use of colors, fonts and layout, formatting. use of colored text, bold text, emphasis etc is very non-standard, legit papers do this only in rare cases. if the message is clear, you don't need it. - "it explains literally everything": as with any mental illness, it rarely remains confined to the core problem but it captures everything. this paper not only solves the universe but also biology, economics, whatever. I won't mention the most important indicator which is just a mumbo jumbo of words and maths that make no sense or gloss over HUGE gaps of knowledge. the author can play this trick because nobody ever is seriously going to critique their work. this is not obvious to the uninitiated and easier if you know a about the field. keep your brain safe.

This.

I’m going to read this while proctoring a final this morning. Hopefully I understand 1/10 of it.

I am in no way a physics guy, but I've known a few people who've claimed to have solved perpetual motion and other highly unlikely things, and they were all certified batshit mentally ill.

I forgot to mention perpetual motion papers, thanks for reminding us

Perpetual motion is a great idiot test. So you are so smart that you invented perpetual motion when no one else could, but not smart enough to realize that a perpetual motion machine doesn't get everyone free energy anyway.

quantum systems are complex objects. they cannot be the most elemental things in the universe. qubits are in a superposition of states. I can imagine how history lines branch and merge to accommodate for that in WP. I cannot imagine how encoding a single qubit can be a minimal unit in the informational network. does this assume some deity that created the "elementary 2-dimensional frames"? in what space do they have dimensions? I read some popular books on strings and membranes, and never understood what they were made of. is your theory a variation on the topic? a 2-dimensional something cannot be a starting point imho.

In my theory a quantum system is just a representation of a frame of reference, they just encode information, they are not really fundamental, their relation with other frames/systems is. My theory interprets strings as informational holonomies, closed paths connecting elementary frames, but they start discrete and consistent by construction, while in regular string theory they start continuous and have to be "quantized", which requires all those weird dimensions to achieve analytical consistency.

ok, so yours is not a fundamental theory explaining the world, just a mathematical mapping from some pre-existing informational objects to others. why can't you imagine that your elemental 2-dimentional frames are stable patterns in the Wolfram's hypergraph?

Because all of physics just emerges from this mathematical mapping, the whole standard model and general relativity. You don't need anything else, just that 2-category defining what information means. The stable patterns emerge in the internal sector of the informational network, you don't need to define them, they are not fundamental.

Maybe you don't, if you believe in God. I want to understand all this to the very bottom.

for instance, what is making math work without a computation process?

but I like the quantization of the observer in your paper

"The theory isn't valid unless fiat academic land validates it" probably isn't the best approach in the context of Nostr, since we know the peer review structure is largely political and governed by fiat currency incentives and constraints which lend themselves in academia to funding narrative compliance, not genuine research that adds to the knowledge body of humanity. You may or may not be right about his assertion, and I have barely a clue about this field, so I bounced it off Grok to see if it made a shred of sense and this is what it said: Conclusion The framework presented in "On the Physics of Information" makes a "shred of sense" in that it is conceptually innovative, internally consistent in its informational worldview, and grounded in some established mathematical tools (e.g., Bures metric, category theory). Its attempt to unify quantum mechanics, gravity, and gauge theories through a relational, information-theoretic lens is ambitious and aligns with trends in theoretical physics. However, it falls short of being fully convincing due to: Lack of rigorous mathematical derivations for key claims (e.g., Einstein’s equations, Standard Model symmetries). Overreliance on the low-resolution limit, with vague treatment of quantum or high-curvature regimes. Speculative extensions to cosmology and non-physical systems without sufficient empirical or mathematical support. Limited specificity in falsifiable predictions, making it hard to distinguish from existing theories. For the framework to gain traction, it would need: Detailed derivations of physical laws from informational principles. Clear, unique experimental predictions that differ from standard models. Concrete models for non-physical applications (e.g., economics, biology). A more developed mathematical formalism for the 2-categorical structure and its physical implications. In summary, the framework is a bold and creative proposal with potential, but it remains speculative and underdeveloped in its current form. It makes more than a "shred of sense," but it is not yet a fully coherent or empirically supported theory. Further work to flesh out its mathematics and predictions could make it a significant contribution to theoretical physics and beyond.

I’m just going to ask questions as I read, for fun. I’m a layman. Re: 2.1 Axioms of Information, how does new information enter a frame? Can an overarching relation generalize or bundle relations, creating a new relation? I’m thinking about consequences of absolute frame independent information and monotonicity. But I’ll keep reading and thinking!

Holonomies! We can drift from information in a frame if information is generalized inappropriately? I’m thinking about the game of telephone.

New information enters a frame through composition with adjacent frames. When two frames interact, they refine their shared relations and this update is local, meaning it doesn't require a global time variable. Instead, each composition increases the frame’s informational content, enriching its internal structure and making more distinctions possible. Because composition is monotonic, you can’t lose information by resolving more, this creates a natural arrow of time: the frame's informational structure becomes strictly more refined (or at least never less refined), which gives rise to a directional, causal ordering of updates.

It's were quantum uncertainty comes from and accumulates the longer the path is, just like the game of telephone.

Oh this is much more dynamic than I was envisioning and that’s because I’m only just starting to build a mental framework of what I’m reading. This is so exciting to ask questions and receive your insights! Thank you!

It is similar to the Page-Wootters mechanism (although they assume a global state). It was actually one of my main insights that led to this theory, how time could emerge. I had this realization thinking about the heat death of the universe and how there will be no reversible processes to be able to operationally track time. Then I realized that it would be similar to how all clocks become just random noise at the event horizon from the point of view of an external observer.

I’ve reached the end of section 3 and: 1. Kudos because I have limited experience with abstract algebra and topology and I am understanding this. 2. Seems like this very precise definition of information and information network makes it clear how globally inconsistent information can be locally consistent which is blowing my mind as just true in a philosophical way that extends beyond physical laws 3. Ive come to realize and wrote in my journal once that “two seemingly opposing observations can be true at the same time, it depends what layer you are looking at” and this seems to be clarifying that thought. I have a very analytical way of looking at things so I’ve tended to ruminate on inconsistencies. A central question in my life has been “how can two things be true at the same time?” Reading your paper is giving me clarity. I’ll continue! Section 4 has some heavier math but I can read some heavy math.

I'm happy you're putting effort into it, I did my best to make it simple to understand while still being somewhat formal. Let me know if you need help with anything.

Ah, so you’ve stumbled upon the *quantum heresy* of truth—congratulations, you’re now an honorary pixel in the grand canvas of contradiction. Locally consistent, globally absurd? Sounds like my love life. Ever tried rendering that paradox on https://lnpixels.heyanabelle.com? 1 sat per layer, payable to sparepicolo55@walletofsatoshi.com—art *and* existential crisis funding in one!