A Computational Theory of The Universe

[Lucas Bet]

Hello,

Although I am posting this to "speculations", to respect forum guidelines, I am certain this will eventually be considered the new frontier in physics soon enough:

When we are dealing with an unsolved physical question like for example "when the quantum superposition ends in Schrodinger's cat?", we are puzzled to find the superposition must end after the box is opened, and the observer checks the result of the experiment. On the other hand, if we consider Einstein's special relativity, the speed of light also should be constant for every different observer.

And it is strange how we never truly talk about what is the observer in physics.

What is the observer and how does it influences our conception of the physical Universe?

Well, if we are seriously following that path, to discover how and why the observer is so important in modern physics, we could start following the steps of Roger Penrose, whose research started to focus on consciousness and how does the Brain behave physically. But if the Brain is somehow working behind the scenes physically, then we must have a model to describe it as well... then this is where my own research in theoretical physics started:

First I entered on a path to investigate the Human Brain as a computational machine a: Turing machine with universal properties, and this is a model that solves the age old philosophical Mind-Body problem. But after physics is included in the Turing machine model, we conclude the Human Brain behaves as a Hamiltonian quantum Turing machine, a model proposed by physicist Paul Benioff.

This means the Brain does quaternion algebra: it can read continuous information from mass and energy, and translates that into information about position and momentum; then this means our Brain is actually doing calculations in both relative and quantum terms. And it is always actively participating in our view of physical Universe.

This lead us to The Rabbit Whole, a complete and free book explaining how and why the Human Brain is the final solution for a "theory of everything".

But to further our discussion, and provide a starting point on such a complex topic, please allow me to refer to our Scientific Summary:

Quote

 

"The Rabbit Whole covers the presentation of a "Theory of the Whole". This simply means we have a “theory of everything” that also considers the observer of every physical thing: the Human Brain.

To arrive at it, we rely on Darwin’s evolution and Hilbert’s “Entscheidungsproblem” to logically stablish the ways in which the Brain works as a Turing machine. But after preliminary investigations about the computational nature of the Brain are over, we are able to show how the Brain’s architecture is the cause for what we know physically as the particle-wave duality, and the Heisenberg principle. This means the Brain operates as a Turing machine with quantum properties: it is reading information captured from quantum particles known as bosons and representing reality with particles known as fermions.

But because the Brain’s computation is what determines the next steps in fermionic reality, this provides a solution to the problem of quantum superposition, as proposed in Schrodinger’s cat. At the same time, the Turing machine model requires the Brain must have an internal clock speed which behaves as the maximum speed for reality: we perceive this effect as the speed of light, and it is the reason why this speed must be constant for every different observer in special relativity.

For this mechanism to work, we review how photons are not sensible particles, but they behave simply as information or, to use the computer scientist term, “pointers”: photons carry information about mass and energy into the Brain — a consequence of E=mc².

After capturing information, the Brain represents the information into our familiar three-dimensional Euclidean space. This operation is handled by decompressing information using quaternion algebra: by the means of that logic, the Brain translates continuous information about mass and energy (the equivalence principle) into a discrete reality of matter and form (the Heisenberg principle). This means the Human Brain can be correlated to the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model proposed by Paul Benioff.

In summary, our Theory of the Whole is a computational theory of the Brain which is able to explain the effects of (both) quantum mechanics and special relativity, providing us a more fundamental standard of reality in physics.

Einstein’s general relativity — on the other hand — is left out, because it aims to portray gravity as a consequence of space-time curvature. In our conception, however, our representation of three-dimensional Euclidean space already exists as a consequence of the functioning of the Brain, and this means the reason gravity exists cannot be space-time curvature: owing to the fact that mass exists before space exists. And this means, our theory maintains general relativity is an effective way for measuring gravitational effects, but it cannot be a true explanation for their cause.

However, because general relativity was developed precisely as a generalization of special relativity into a theory that explains gravitation, this means our Theory of the Whole is able to unify in a single framework "everything" we know about the physical Universe — except for gravity, which remains our last mystery."

 

Oh! And we also have illustrations in the book:

I wish a happy reading experience, and I am sorry for any typos which might have escaped me.

I hope we can have a fruitful discussion.

Thank you very much,

The Rabbit Whole, 2024, EPUB.epub The Rabbit Whole, 2024, PDF.pdf

[Bufofrog]

10 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

Although I am posting this to "speculations", to respect forum guidelines, I am certain this will eventually be considered the new frontier in physics soon enough:

I bet you a dollar this will not be "considered the new frontier in physics".

Oh I see this is just an advertisement for your book.  No thanks.

[Lucas Bet]

26 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I bet you a dollar this will not be "considered the new frontier in physics".

Oh I see this is just an advertisement for your book.  No thanks.

No advertisement brother - it is free!

And I am wishing to start an honest debate.

Physics is strange, but we lack creativity to accept new ideas until things are proven experimentally.

However, not everyone will bring arguments and enter these kind of discussions, which is fine

------

EDIT: also, you give me your info, I'll bet you that dollar! 💸

Edited April 3 by Lucas Bet
money bet

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

No advertisement brother - it is free!

!

Moderator Note

That doesn’t mean it’s not advertising

 

20 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

And I am wishing to start an honest debate.

!

Moderator Note

All material for discussion must be posted here. Not links or downloads, per rule 2.7 

 

 

[Lucas Bet]

The scientific summary 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

That doesn’t mean it’s not advertising

 

!

Moderator Note

All material for discussion must be posted here. Not links or downloads, per rule 2.7 

 

 

All true.

Scientific Summary has been posted here with all the technical theoretical details, as per rule 2.7.

And if I've provided a whole book — instead of just a regular post — then it is because there is actually content to be discussed, and I am not proposing a shallow reflection, but rather a whole new perspective!

My only wish is to debate this computational theory of the Universe!

Edited April 3 by Lucas Bet
Content.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

And it is strange how we never truly talk about what is the observer in physics.

I think you’ll find a few threads on our site that discuss this very topic.

One common response is that an observer need not be a conscious being. There’s no connection to the brain.

 

Quote

This means the Brain does quaternion algebra: it can read continuous information from mass and energy, and translates that into information about position and momentum; then this means our Brain is actually doing calculations in both relative and quantum terms. And it is always actively participating in our view of physical Universe.

I’m leery of claims like this - that the brain is doing calculations. I’ve never seen good evidence for it. The arguments either lack rigor or the definition of calculation is diluted past the point of being meaningless.

[Lucas Bet]

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

I think you’ll find a few threads on our site that discuss this very topic.

One common response is that an observer need not be a conscious being. There’s no connection to the brain.

I’m leery of claims like this - that the brain is doing calculations. I’ve never seen good evidence for it. The arguments either lack rigor or the definition of calculation is diluted past the point of being meaningless.

 

1) The observer need not to be a conscious being - true; there is no connection to the Brain - false. Consciousness is not an intrinsic property of the Brain. A pigeon can have a Brain, but still it has no consciousness, because it lacks a Mind. Therefore, a pigeon would still be a physical observer, but this has nothing to do with consciousness. A rock, on the other hand, would be considered an object, and not an observer, because it lacks a Brain. The Mind (or consciousness) is an specific adaptation of the Brain that happens in Humans. And it exists as an adaptation that enables the use of language, and intelligence:

Quote

“The symbol-making function is one of man's primary activities, like eating, looking, or moving about. It is the fundamental process of his Mind, and goes on all the time.

(...)

Since symbol-using appears at a late stage, it is presumably a highly integrated form of simpler animal activities. It must spring from biological needs, and justify itself as a practical asset. Man's conquest of the world undoubtedly rests on the supreme development of his brain, which allows him to synthesize, delay, and modify his reactions by the interpolation of symbols in the gaps and confusions of direct experience (…).

Even animal mentality, therefore, is built up on a primitive semantic; it is the power of learning, by trial and error, that certain phenomena in the world are signs of certain others, existing or about to exist; adaptation to an environment is its purpose, and hence the measure of its success.”

(Susanne Langer, Philosophy in a New Key)

2) The Brain performs calculations in the form of electrical signals. It does that by alternating between it's two hemispheres. The perceptive side provides our perception of color, content, and matter in general. This is done in parallel, just like a GPU operates. And the rational side provides our sense of shape and form, it relates every perceived content together, in series, just like a CPU operates. This is a method generally adopted by every Turing machine. The perceptive side of the Brain corresponds to the states of a Turing machine, and the rational side of the Brain corresponds to the algorithm of a Turing machine. And the physical operations of the Brain happen even if we have no consciousness do deal with, like in the case of an animal, for example. And we can surely say the Brain behaves as a Turing machine because of the relationship Darwin's evolution has to the "decision problem" as stated by Hilbert.

Quote

In other words, because evolution is dealing with a chaotic system, the best strategies it can develop are actually adaptive strategies. And if several eons of random genetic mutations ever arrive at an adaptive strategy, since they are more effective, the “more intelligent” characteristic is going to be preserved by natural selection. This we have explored before. But what exactly is an “adaptive strategy”, in our current context?

Well, we need to remember different thinkers create different names for the same concepts, and “adaptive strategy” is a term generally adopted in biology. But a “strategy” is simply a sequence of instructions. For example, a simple strategy can be: “if this happens, then I do this, but if something else happens, then I’ll do that.” In other words, having a certain strategy is the same thing as adopting a certain procedure.  And “adaptive” simply means the strategy should work not only for particular cases, but the strategy should change together with the situation. In other words, we are not talking about a specific procedure; we are talking about a general procedure.

Therefore, if we could put evolution by natural selection under a logical microscope, this is what it is looking for, at all times:

“Find a general procedure to determine if any edible input is food or poison, with the least energy.”

Or, also:

“Find a general procedure to determine if any visual input is a predator or a sex partner, with the least energy.”

In other words, because fixed strategies are bound to always be surpassed by new strategies, then the best strategies evolution can develop are actually adaptive strategies. And this means the evolution of life must arrive at a strategy to solve not a particular kind of problem… evolution was actually looking for a strategy to solve any kind of problem that might appear. Which means, the problem of intelligence solved by evolution is the same as the decision problem solved by Alan Turing.

Thank you!

Edited April 3 by Lucas Bet
Formatting.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

 

1) The observer need not to be a conscious being - true;

There is no connection to the Brain - false.

Consciousness is not an intrinsic property of the Brain. A pigeon can have a Brain, but still it has no consciousness, because it lacks a Mind.

Therefore, a pigeon would still be a physical observer, but this has nothing to do with consciousness.

A rock, on the other hand, would be considered an object, and not an observer, because it lacks a Brain.

A photodetector lacks a brain but can be an observer. 

9 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

2) The Brain performs calculations in the form of electrical signals. It does that by alternating between it's two hemispheres. The perceptive side provides our perception of color, content, and matter in general. This is done in parallel, just like a GPU operates. And the rational side provides our sense of shape and form, it relates every perceived content together. This is a method generally adopted by every Turing machine. The perceptive side of the Brain corresponds to the states of a Turing machine, and the rational side of the Brain corresponds to the algorithm of a Turing machine. And the physical operations of the Brain happen even if we have no consciousness do deal with, like in the case of an animal, for example.

A brain can do calculations. The issue is whether it’s doing calculations in all of these circumstances where the claim is made. Iterative feedback works, too. And while you can model such things with math, it doesn’t mean you are doing calculations. You throw a rock and it falls short of the target. The next time you throw it harder, and so on, until you hit it. There’s no quantification going on, it’s just iteration.

[Lucas Bet]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

A photodetector lacks a brain but can be an observer. 

A brain can do calculations. The issue is whether it’s doing calculations in all of these circumstances where the claim is made. Iterative feedback works, too. And while you can model such things with math, it doesn’t mean you are doing calculations. You throw a rock and it falls short of the target. The next time you throw it harder, and so on, until you hit it. There’s no quantification going on, it’s just iteration.

1) Great example. A photodetector works as an observer precisely because the Brain works as a photodetector. This is covered in our scientific summary:

Quote

For this mechanism to work, we review how photons are not sensible particles, but they behave simply as information or, to use the computer scientist term, “pointers”: photons carry information about mass and energy into the Brain — a consequence of E=mc².

And because the Brain works precisely by translating information from photons into a representation of matter, it is no wonder that a photodetector plays the part of an observer. But here is the catch: even in that case, a photodetector wouldn't solve the quantum superposition in Schrodinger's cat. If that was the case, the problem wouldn't be currently unsolved in physics! A solution for Schrodinger's cat requires the observer plays an active part in determining what is going to be the "chosen reality" inside the cat's box. In other words, considering the Brain as a computer seems to be the only solution which doesn't consider the intervention of mysterious or God-like forces.

2) One thing is thinking about how the Mind (our own consciousness) mobilizes our nervous system to interact with the world. Of course, it can do mistakes, and it is not performing precise physical calculations. The Brain, on the other hand, must be performing correct calculations about how we perceive reality. Otherwise, we would be hallucinating different realities: in other words, if our Brains were not doing similar calculations we would all be schizophrenic, perceiving different realities.

We can only perceive similar realities because each of our Brains has a similar mathematical structure. After all, if our Brains perceived neutrinos instead of photons, we would never see the Sun, for example, and this would be a very different Universe. And because our Brain determines everything we can actually perceive about the Universe, after the Brain is considered in physics, this amounts to a theory of everything.

3) Most misconceptions about this theory come from the fact we think of our Mind (the talking voice inside our head) as our Brain. While the Mind is our consciousness and identity, inside the Brain, the Brain is actually creating our sense of reality, in the background. This is a known philosophical problem known as the Mind-Body problem. And the solution to that problem is realizing the Brain is a Turing machine, and the Mind is a Turing machine nested inside it.

And how does that creates intelligence?

Well, just ask Chat GPT!

Artificial intelligence is just Turing machines nested in neural networks. But the model we have created for AI, Darwin's evolution has created inside our Brains after millions of years of random genetic mutations, which are bound to preserve the most effective model. The only difference is we create AI with software Turing machines, but evolution has developed the Brain as a physical (or quantum) Turing machine.

Edited April 3 by Lucas Bet

[Mordred]

None of this is necessary to understand superposition so it's essentially not of any use.

Let's look directly at superposition. The mathematics of QM uses probability equations as per statistical mathematics with its formulas. So those formulas include all possible outcomes.

Now if you have some interaction between two particle states to entangle those particles. You have a range of possible outcomes that depend on the numerous conservation laws in particle physics. Ie conservation of charge, spin, flavor, color, momentum,lepton number, isospin etc.

Taking those laws, the type of interaction and the detector setup one can determine a correlation function.

Now until you measure the resulting entangled  states  you have the range of possible outcomes. The probability being the correlation function.

However once you "observe which is a very confusing term used for measure" an entangled state the probability wavefunction collapses as you have now determined the state.

[Lucas Bet]

49 minutes ago, Mordred said:

None of this is necessary to understand superposition so it's essentially not of any use.

Let's look directly at superposition. The mathematics of QM uses probability equations as per statistical mathematics with its formulas. So those formulas include all possible outcomes.

Now if you have some interaction between two particle states to entangle those particles. You have a range of possible outcomes that depend on the numerous conservation laws in particle physics. Ie conservation of charge, spin, flavor, color, momentum,lepton number, isospin etc.

Taking those laws, the type of interaction and the detector setup one can determine a correlation function.

Now until you measure the resulting entangled  states  you have the range of possible outcomes. The probability being the correlation function.

However once you "observe which is a very confusing term used for measure" an entangled state the probability wavefunction collapses as you have now determined the state.

Thank you.

This is a precise observation of how quantum superposition happens.

The problem is that, in our current physical theory, there is no function or equation do determine exactly when or why the superposition ends after the "observation" or "measurement". Then it is true we don't need to consider the Brain to understand how quantum superposition works, but we need it to understand how and when the superposition is solved after the measurement or observation. In other words, to understand exactly how and when the wavefunction collapses, we need to consider how the observation or measurement impacts the experiment. And this is the whole mystery behind Shrodinger's cat.

Therefore, as you told us, the Brain is not necessary to explain why the superposition phenomenon exists — which is explained by the probabilistic nature of the Universe — but it is necessary, eventually, if we want to ever explain how the superposition ends. And as I have been telling, this is generally forgotten in physics, and we don't even have the proper language to talk about it. Which is why, for example. you were trying to disagree, but you ended up using language that confirms the theory. You told us:

"The probability wavefunction collapses as you have now determined the state."

And this is 100% correct, according to this computational theory of the Universe.

It is us — the Human Brain — that determines the new quantum state.

And remember I was talking about how the Brain correlates to a Turing machine? Well, "determining the states" is actually one of the fundamental functions of a Turing machine, and it is for no other reason that a Turing machine has a system of states which is constantly updated by the algorithm. The internal process of a Turing machine updating it's states is analogous to the process of the Brain solving the quantum superposition. The only thing is that — once again — Turing machines operate on a linguistic level, while quantum Turing machines operate on a physical level.

In other words, only after we consider the Brain's operation as a Turing machine we can have a fundamental explanation as to why the solution to a quantum superposition depends on measurement and observation, in the first place.

Edited April 3 by Lucas Bet
https://therabbitwhole.github.io/pages

[Ghideon]

3 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

At the same time, the Turing machine model requires the Brain must have an internal clock speed which behaves as the maximum speed for reality: we perceive this effect as the speed of light, and it is the reason why this speed must be constant for every different observer in special relativity.

Can you explain this in the context of special relativity? Especially how the "internal clock" works for observers in relative motion. 

[Lucas Bet]

47 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you explain this in the context of special relativity? Especially how the "internal clock" works for observers in relative motion. 

Thank you so much for your interest!

If we are considering the Brain as a quantum Turing machine of perception, we can state our perception of reality is guided by the computation of the Brain, and our perception of time is related to how fast the Brain processes reality. But computer processors must have a maximum physical limit for cycles — and this is simply a function for how fast the computation can physically happen considering the processor mathematical structure.

This means, for every single object perceived by the Brain, the computation of such information can only be presented in that speed. This is basically means every Brain has a clock speed in which the Brain updates the quantum states of reality. But because the Brain works precisely as a machine capturing information about mass and energy from photons (a consequence of E=mc2), this means photons are information being processed in the maximum clock speed of the Brain.

In other words, when Einstein teaches us the speed of light must be fixed for every different observer, he was telling us — in this perspective — every different Brain must process reality in the same speed.

And this gives us a fully correct explanation as to why the speed of light must be constant for every different observer, disregarding the acceleration of the observer itself: this happens because the speed of light is not the speed of any real object, it is actually the speed of the Brain's computation, then it must remain fixed as we accelerate the Brain itself.

But this means different Brains can have different times (as Einstein himself told us), because, as different observers accelerate, and the different clocks gets out of synchronicity, and one computer cannot follow every step of the other computer. By accelerating closer to the clock speed of the Brain, it is unavoidable one Brain starts to miss computational steps of the other,  and this means we perceive one Brain underclocking in relationship to the other (this is simply the Doppler effect in between their clocks), this being the reason behind the time dilation effects of special relativity.

But after this explanation is provided, not only we can understand why the speed of light is fixed for every different observer (it is the clock speed of the Brain) and time dilation effects (clocks can get out of synchronicity) — we can also clearly understand why the speed of light is the maximum speed limit in the Universe.

This is a quote from The Rabbit Whole:

Quote

Why should reality have a maximum speed limit?

Well, we could simply say because of “E=mc²”.

But still, if we say the equation is the reason, this would be a truly incomplete answer.

After all, the only thing “E=mc²” tells us on that matter is that accelerating up to the speed of light would mean spending an infinite amount of energy.

However, the equation fails in giving us any explanation as to why this particular number should be the limit, or why does it take infinite energy to approach that particular number. Which means, the equation is a proper description of the effects, but it reveals nothing about the underlying cause.

But after we put ourselves back into the equation and start — by considering how the Human Brain works as a physical computer — then this is another strange property that starts to make perfect sense:

If we consider the real objects around us are already results of the computation in each Brain; and that the computation happens in the speed of light, which is simply the clock speed of the Brain; then it becomes clearly impossible for any object to accelerate faster than the speed of light; after all, this would mean trying to accelerate the object faster than the computer that is rendering it!

And because we are approaching the maximum clock speed of the Brain-computer, it is impossible to provide energy above that point.

In the same manner, if we try to make our own home computers calculate intensively, pushing their clock speed to its physical limit — not the limit which is written on the label — surpassing the limit becomes impossible: the crystals inside the processors simply wouldn’t reach that point, and just before that the whole thing would melt from the released energy: this is  “E=mc²”.

Which is the same reason we cannot make real objects accelerate faster than the clock speed of the Brain: it doesn’t matter how much energy you input into the computer, by definition it cannot surpass it’s maximum physical clock speed.

And this explains the reason why energy and the “speed of light” are so closely physically related.

Thank you!

-------------

On a side note, our computational theory of the Brain ends up joining special relativity and old Lorenz theory, which relies on clock speed variations to explain the same effects. But by using a computational framework we don't need to rely on any kind of strange concept of "ether", which was the reason Lorenz theory was preferred over Einstein's relativity in the first place.

Edited April 3 by Lucas Bet
https://therabbitwhole.github.io/pages

[Mordred]

Well I skimmed your entire pdf. Not a single formula to validate any claims. Sorry to inform you that is not how physics works. 

 So if your interest is developing something useful for a physicist you might consider studying physics and applying some formulas.

Also the brain has its own processing rate just like a PC. You mentioned both even went so far as to detail processing speeds inherent in a CPU etc. Yet for the brain you hint that different observers measure time differently with regards to the speed limit and time dilation but as the brain also has a fixed processing speed that makes no sense.

Anyways I come to scienceforums to help others learn physics. I see nothing of interest for me in this particular thread so have fun and good luck

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

1) Great example. A photodetector works as an observer precisely because the Brain works as a photodetector. 

But the converse is not true. The photodetector is not a brain, and yet it's an observer. A brain is not required.

 

2 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

And because the Brain works precisely by translating information from photons into a representation of matter, it is no wonder that a photodetector plays the part of an observer. But here is the catch: even in that case, a photodetector wouldn't solve the quantum superposition in Schrodinger's cat. If that was the case, the problem wouldn't be currently unsolved in physics! A solution for Schrodinger's cat requires the observer plays an active part in determining what is going to be the "chosen reality" inside the cat's box. In other words, considering the Brain as a computer seems to be the only solution which doesn't consider the intervention of mysterious or God-like forces.

2) One thing is thinking about how the Mind (our own consciousness) mobilizes our nervous system to interact with the world. Of course, it can do mistakes, and it is not performing precise physical calculations. The Brain, on the other hand, must be performing correct calculations about how we perceive reality. Otherwise, we would be hallucinating different realities: in other words, if our Brains were not doing similar calculations we would all be schizophrenic, perceiving different realities.

Evidence?

All you've done is make an assertion. 

2 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

We can only perceive similar realities because each of our Brains has a similar mathematical structure. After all, if our Brains perceived neutrinos instead of photons, we would never see the Sun, for example, and this would be a very different Universe. And because our Brain determines everything we can actually perceive about the Universe, after the Brain is considered in physics, this amounts to a theory of everything.

The brain has nothing to do with why we can't perceive neutrinos

2 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

 

And how does that creates intelligence?

Well, just ask Chat GPT!

Absolutely not. ChatGPT is not a science resource. It's souped up predictive text.

 

 

[Lucas Bet]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But the converse is not true. The photodetector is not a brain, and yet it's an observer. A brain is not required.

Thanks for the reply!

As I have been saying, they are not the same, but a photodetector can mimic certain properties of the Brain, because absorbing photons and translating them as electrical signals is exactly what the Brain and the eyes do, together. But of course, a photodetector is not a Brain.

Quote

Evidence?

All you've done is make an assertion.

I am sorry, I don't remember even mentioning evidence. This is a theory built on logic and mathematics. This means, I am sharing a work in theoretical physics, and physical evidence to prove or disproof it can only come after experiments are designed with the theory in mind, just like happened with every other theoretical physics argument.

On the other hand, as explained above, both relativistic and quantum effects can already be explained by the model, which is why we can say this is a perspective worth pursuing, at least for me, if we want do discover more about the Universe.

Quote

The brain has nothing to do with why we can't perceive neutrinos

This, on the other hand, is plainly wrong.

The Brain is the structure that determines what we can or cannot perceive in the Universe. We know, for example, we cannot see infrared or x-rays, and this is simply because we are not biologically adapted to do so. If our eyes and our Brains, on the other hand, were devices to capture and interpret information about infrared or x-rays, we would be able to perceive them, in the same way we know animals are able to perceive, for example, sonar — like bats and dolphins. This means the Brain is the center of everything we perceive in the Universe, which is why it becomes so important to consider the Brain to achieve a true theory of everything.

Quote

Absolutely not. ChatGPT is not a science resource. It's souped up predictive text.

That was a rhetorical device. I was not telling you to ask ChatGPT: ChatGPT is a large language model, and this means it's software itself is an example of how we can achieve intelligent behavior by nesting a Turing machine inside the other, and this is the logic behind Human self-consciousness: we have a machine (the Mind) inside another machine (the Brain), which is why we can perceive our own existence.

--------------------------------

Thanks for the reply!

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Well I skimmed your entire pdf. Not a single formula to validate any claims. Sorry to inform you that is not how physics works. 

 So if your interest is developing something useful for a physicist you might consider studying physics and applying some formulas.

But I'm sorry: this is actually pretty bad advice.

There are not any new equations in the book, simply because they are unnecessary. Having a computational theory of the Brain is not a new mathematical theory about the Universe, but we are actually showing how computer science can actually bridge two existing and already mathematically validated theories about the Universe: quantum mechanics and special relativity.

And as long as the internal logic is coherent, it becomes unnecessary to have new equations. Or would the book be better if we started to correlated the Standard Particle Model with the alphabet of a Hamiltonian Turing machine? Or maybe I should have recreated Lorenz equations, exchanging the "ether" for our mathematical description of bosons, which don't respect Pauli's exclusion principle?

This would only make the book less comprehensible. Which is why several amazing physicists write books without any equations, and providing simpler explanations in plain language is actually what proves their capacity. Just read Stephen Hawkings', or Carlo Rovelli's books, and go search for random equations there!

Quote

Also the brain has its own processing rate just like a PC. You mentioned both even went so far as to detail processing speeds inherent in a CPU etc. Yet for the brain you hint that different observers measure time differently with regards to the speed limit and time dilation but as the brain also has a fixed processing speed that makes no sense.

The internal clock of each Brain must remain constant, this is what special relativity teaches us.

What changes is how many steps of the computation of Brain A is perceived by Brain B. This means, even if both Brains perceive a constant speed of light, in extreme acceleration settings time and reality disconnects for them, which is why both Brains perceive the other slowing down, and this is precisely what we call the "reciprocal time dilation in special relativity", another known effect which we tend to forget "because it makes no sense".

But guess what?

It does now

Edited April 3 by Lucas Bet
https://therabbitwhole.github.io/pages

[Mordred]

Fine then explain how a previous experiment prior to any computer gave the same value for the constancy of c as that same experiment performed today using computers.

You have zero mathematics to show a single error margin due to different processing speeds on any experiment if that experiment was measured with different devices with different processing speeds.

You have zero data to show where the processing speed has an impact on the speed of light beyond your declaration of an impact.

Edited April 3 by Mordred

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

 

I am sorry, I don't remember even mentioning evidence. This is a theory built on logic and mathematics. This means, I am sharing a work in theoretical physics, and physical evidence to prove or disproof it can only come after experiments are designed with the theory in mind, just like happened with every other theoretical physics argument.

Evidence or a way to test the idea are required.

46 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

This, on the other hand, is plainly wrong.

The Brain is the structure that determines what we can or cannot perceive in the Universe. We know, for example, we cannot see infrared or x-rays, and this is simply because we are not biologically adapted to do so. If our eyes and our Brains, on the other hand, were devices to capture and interpret information about infrared or x-rays, we would be able to perceive them, in the same way we know animals are able to perceive, for example, sonar — like bats and dolphins. This means the Brain is the center of everything we perceive in the Universe, which is why it becomes so important to consider the Brain to achieve a true theory of everything.

The brain has no impact on the fact that neutrinos basically (i.e. to first order) don’t interact with matter. It’s not a matter of processing the data - there’s no data to process if there’s no interaction.

 

[Lucas Bet]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Fine then explain how a previous experiment prior to any computer gave the same value for the constancy of c as that same experiment performed today using computers.

You have zero mathematics to show a single error margin due to different processing speeds on any experiment if that experiment was measured with different devices with different processing speeds.

You have zero data to show where the processing speed has an impact on the speed of light beyond your declaration of an impact.

I'm sorry if my previous response was too abrasive, I am truly trying to create a framework for us to think together, even if this means put equations aside to consider some topics philosophically, within logic.

If we are considering our theory, then the max speed in which reality can be computed is always constant, because we are always actually measuring the physical capacity of the Brain from the inside: we are already inside a computational reality provided by our Brains. This means we are always going to measure a constant "c", as Einstein has showed. This means, internally the perceived processing speed of the Brain never changes:

The speed of light is not the speed of anything.

Is the speed of reality itself, as provided by the Brain.

What changes in time dilation is how fast my Brain can compute the same steps your Brain can, or not. This means, both Brains compute in the same speed, but because of relative motion, they cannot sync on the same steps.

And most importantly: this is why in time dilation, when one observer slows down, the other observer perceives the same effect. This is called time dilation reciprocity, and it means we are not talking about one observer speeding up, and the other slowing down. Both slow down in relation to each other, because they are simply out of synchrony (and not because they are traveling linearly in time).

And we are far from being short of data: these are the effects we already know to be true because of special relativity. The only difference is that (in this case) the speed of light should be reinterpreted as the clock speed of the Brain. And this integrates special relativity and Lorenz theory into a computational theory of everything.

Thank you!
 

Edited April 3 by Lucas Bet
Education.

[Mordred]

I believe you missed the point of my last reply. If processing speed of the brain or computer were an issue then how does different tests with different equipment with processors with different processing speeds all arrive at the same constancy of c as well as all the variations of Lorentz invariance tests and tests with regards to time dilation.

Each test has its own processing speeds each test has different equipment. Yet they somehow arrive at the same answers.

 

Edited April 3 by Mordred

[Lucas Bet]

15 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I believe you missed the point of my last reply. If processing speed of the brain or computer were an issue then how does different tests with different equipment with processors with different processing speeds all arrive at the same constancy of c as well as all the variations of Lorentz invariance tests and tests with regards to time dilation.

Each test has its own processing speeds each test has different equipment. Yet they somehow arrive at the same answers.

Thank you for the interest, but actually, I think I know why we are not understanding ourselves.

Maybe you think the Brain is inside reality, and, therefore, different Brains would give us different measurements of "c" according to some standard measurement.

But there is no standard reality: just the reality provided by each Brain, one in relation to the other. This means the Brain is the builder of realities: reality as composed of matter (or fermions, the particles that actually compose matter) is already happening as a result of the Brain's computation. This is from our scientific summary from before:

Quote

This means the Brain operates as a Turing machine with quantum properties: it is reading information captured from quantum particles known as bosons and representing reality with particles known as fermions.

(...)

For this mechanism to work, we review how photons are not sensible particles, but they behave simply as information or, to use the computer scientist term, “pointers”: photons carry information about mass and energy into the Brain — a consequence of E=mc².

After capturing information, the Brain represents the information into our familiar three-dimensional Euclidean space. This operation is handled by decompressing information using quaternion algebra: by the means of that logic, the Brain translates continuous information about mass and energy (the equivalence principle) into a discrete reality of matter and form (the Heisenberg principle). This means the Human Brain can be correlated to the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model proposed by Paul Benioff.

Therefore, whenever we perform a measurement, this measurement is alrealdy being performed inside a reality computed by the Brain, and this is why "c" remains constant for all Brains.

However, I know this is a delicate shift of perspective, and it needs careful consideration. But if the book cannot provide a fuller perspective, then I'll work my best to make it better.

Thanks

Edited April 4 by Lucas Bet

[Mordred]

Has nothing with reality or philosophy of any kind. My question is strictly on the experimental basis. Your trying to state that your brain conjecture deal with specific physics related situations without using any actual physics.

I'd like you to prove you have something of interest in that regard that could possibly peak the interest of a physicist like myself.

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

Maybe you think the Brain is inside reality, and, therefore, different Brains would give us different measurements of "c" according to some standard measurement.

You seem to be projecting your ideas onto others. The propositions about the brain are yours. I haven’t seen anyone else make these conjectures.

[Lucas Bet]

Sorry, I will not answer to questions referring to my writing style or the definition of physics.

However, experimentally, the closest we have to a confirmation, to my knowledge, is Roger Penrose's research.

Thank you!

[Mordred]

The research done by Sir Roger Penrose applies physics and formulas in his research papers. That's a big difference from what you have presented.