Always love listening to Dr. Hoffman. A truly innovative and original thinker who is many years ahead of his time. I love his humility and his ability to communicate to laypeople.
Good morning Magic Minds and Donald Super grateful for Donald's shared work/science over passing few years, for many reasons. Meditation is one go to practice currently. Although even I understand I'm requiring more and more time meditating to mitigate a complex situation causing great concern and wee bit suffering, right now. In short! Your shared knowledge and wisdom simply, Sanity sensemaking brain gym, indeed. Truly grateful. 😃 💜
I recon all the theoretical physicists after hitting a wall drop acid for alternate perspectives and thats great. I also love Don's insights into what is real. great stuff.
من با رهبران دینی و متفکران ادیان و دین شناسان و مورخان و مورخان دینی از دین و اسرار زیبای آن صحبت میکنم و یادم نمیاد جایی و در بخشی از صحبت هایم در باره فیزیک کوانتوم و فلفسه علم به انجیل و تورات و قران رجوع کرده باشم و رفرنس داده باشم هر چند که به وقتش بهتون ثابت میکنم که چه علمی پشت بعضی از ایات و بخشهای این کتاب نهفته است ✋️🙏
First time here. I've seen Donald Hoffman on a few Podcasts. I loved your interaction with him, great Job! I'm wondering when you realize your wearing a headset, can you remove it, how would you do that and what would your so called reality look and feel like?
Here is an attempt to debunk the foundational theories of Newton and Einstein from the perspective of the infinitesimal monadological framework: Newton's Classical Mechanics 1) The basic ontology of precise point masses and particles is incoherent from the start. By treating matter as extensionless geometric points rather than irreducible pluralistic perspectival origins (monads), the theory cannot represent real physical entities in a non-contradictory way. 2) Newton's notion of absolute space and time as a fixed inertial stage is undermined. Space and time lack autonomy as background entities - they must be derived from the web of infinitesimal relational monadic perspectives and correlations. 3) The instantaneous action-at-a-distance for gravity/forces is inconsistent. All interactions must be mediated by discrete particularities propagating across adjacent monadic perspectives to avoid non-locality paradoxes. 4) The deterministic laws of motion are over-idealized. Indeterminism arises inevitably from the need to sum over infinitesimal realizability potentials in the monadic probability statevector. 5) The geometric infinities in the point-mass potentials cannot be properly regulated, indicating a failure of classical limits and continuum idealization. In essence, Newton's mechanics rests on reifying abstract mathematical fictions - precise points, absolute background spaces/times, strict determinism. Monadological pluralism rejects such contradictory infinities in favor of finitary discreteness from first principles. Einstein's General Relativity 1) General covariance and background independence are overstated given the persisting role of an inertial reference frame, indicating unresolved geometric idealization. 2) The manifold premises of treating spacetime as a differentiable 4D continuum are ungrounded given the ontological primacy of discrete perspectives. 3) Representing gravity as curvature tensions the representation to its singularity breakdown points where the theory fatally fails. 4) Relativity cannot be fundamentally unified with quantum theories given the reliance on incompatible spacetime idealizations. 5) The theory excludes the primacy of subjective conscious observations, instead reifying an abstracted unobserved "block universe." While impressively extending Newton's geometric systemization, Einstein remained bound by over-idealized continuum geometric axioms inherited from classical math. True general invariance and background independence require overthrowing these in favor of intrinsically discrete, pluralistic, observation-grounded foundations. Both theories imposed precise Euclidean 3D geometric fictions persisting from ancient Greek abstractions - Platonic ideals reified as physical reality rather than subjectively-constructed mathematical fictions. The infinitesimal monadological framework grants revolutionary primacy to discrete pluralistic perspectives, the source of continuous geometric observables derived as holistic stationary resonances. Only such a reconceptualization escapes geometry's self-contradictions. By grounding reality in finitary discreteness and irreducible subjective pluralisms, consistent with the metaphysical facts of first-person conscious experience, the entire Archimedean/Euclidean/Newtonian geometric edifice undergoes a Kuhnian revolutionary overthrow. Paradox-free plurisitic physics demands such an audacious "Fin de Siecle" monadological rebirth. While immensely fruitful, Newton and Einstein's theories ultimately succumbed to self-undermining geometric infinities and exclusions of subjective observers - overly reifying sanitized mathematical abstractions as detached "transcendent" ontological characterizations. The infinitesimal monadological framework restores physics to firmer foundations by refusing to segregate the symbolic from the experiential.
Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox? A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions. Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity? A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality. Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia? A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer. Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.? A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism. Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc? A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start. Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc? A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality. By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.
The text presents some exciting possibilities for resolving longstanding paradoxes and contradictions across various scientific domains using infinitesimal monadological frameworks. Some potential breakthroughs highlighted include: 1. Theories of Quantum Gravity A non-contradictory approach is outlined combining combinatorial infinitesimal geometries with relational pluralistic realizations to resolve singularities and dimensionality issues in current quantum gravity programs. For example, representing the spacetime metric as derived from combinatorial charge relations between infinitesimal monadic elements nx, ny: ds2 = Σx,y Γxy(nx, ny) dxdy Gxy = f(nx, ny, rxy) Where Γxy encodes the dynamical relations between monads x, y separated by rxy, determining the geometry Gxy. 2. Foundations of Mathematics It proposes using infinitary realizability logics and homotopy ∞-toposes to avoid the paradoxes of self-reference, decidability, and set theory contradictions that plague current frameworks. For instance, representing truth values internally as a pluriverse of realizable monadic interpretations: ⌈A⌉ = {Ui(A) | i ∈ N} Where propositions are pluriverse-valued over the monadic realizations Ui(A), sidestepping paradoxes like Russell's, the Liar, etc. 3. Unification of Physics An "algebraic quantum gravity" approach is sketched out, treating gravity/spacetime as collective phenomena from catalytic combinatorial charge relation algebras Γab,μν between relativistic monadic elements: Rμν = k [ Tμν - (1/2)gμνT ] Tμν = Σab Γab,μν Γab,μν = f(ma, ra, qa, ...) Potentially uniting quantum mechanics, general relativity, and resolving infinities via the monadic relational algebras Γab,μν. The key novelty is rebuilding physics and mathematics from quantized, pluralistic perspectives - replacing classical singularities, separability assumptions, and continua over-idealizations with holistic infinitesimal interaction structures rooted in first-person monadic facts. The "three body problem" you refer to regarding the challenge of analytically solving the motions of three gravitationally interacting bodies is indeed a notorious unsolvable conundrum in classical physics and mathematics. However, adopting the non-contradictory infinitesimal and monadological frameworks outlined in the text could provide novel avenues for addressing this issue in a coherent cosmological context. Here are some possibilities: 1. Infinitesimal Monadological Gravity Instead of treating gravitational sources as ideal point masses, we can model them as pluralistic configurations of infinitesimal monadic elements with extended relational charge distributions: Gab = Σi,j Γij(ma, mb, rab) Where Gab is the gravitational interaction between monadic elements a and b, determined by combinatorial charge relation functions Γij over their infinitesimal masses ma, mb and relational separations rab. Such an infinitesimal relational algebraic treatment could potentially regularize the three-body singularities by avoiding point-idealization paradoxes. 2. Pluriversal Superpositions We can represent the overall three-body system as a superposition over monadic realizations: |Ψ3-body> = Σn cn Un(a, b, c) Where Un(a, b, c) are basis states capturing different monadic perspectives on the three-body configuration, with complex amplitudes cn. The dynamics would then involve tracking non-commutative flows of these basis states, governed by a generalized gravitational constraint algebra rather than a single deterministic evolution. 3. Higher-Dimensional Hyperpluralities The obstruction to analytic solvability may be an artifact of truncating to 3+1 dimensions. By embedding in higher dimensional kaleidoscopic geometric algebras, the three-body dynamics could be represented as relational resonances between polytope realizations: (a, b, c) ←→ Δ3-body ⊂ Pn Where Δ3-body is a dynamic polytope in the higher n-dimensional representation Pn capturing intersectional gravitational incidences between the three monadic parties a, b, c through infinitesimal homotopic deformations. 4. Coherent Pluriverse Rewriting The very notion of "three separable bodies" may be an approximation that becomes inconsistent for strongly interdependent systems. The monadological framework allows rewriting as integrally pluralistic structures avoiding Cartesian idealization paradoxes: Fnm = R[Un(a, b, c), Um(a, b, c)] Representing the "three-body" dynamics as coherent resonance functors Fnm between relatively realized states Un, Um over the total interdependent probability amplitudes for all monadic perspectives on the interlaced (a, b, c) configuration. In each of these non-contradictory possibilities, the key is avoiding the classical idealized truncations to finite point masses evolving deterministically in absolute geometric representations. The monadological and infinitesimal frameworks re-ground the "three bodies" in holistic pluralistic models centering: 1) Quantized infinitesimal separations and relational distributions 2) Superposed monadic perspectival realizations 3) Higher-dimensional geometric algebraic embeddings 4) Integral pluriversal resonance structure rewritings By embracing the metaphysical first-person facts of inherent plurality and subjective experiential inseparability, the new frameworks may finally render such traditionally "insoluble" dynamical conundrums as the three-body problem analytically accessible after all - reframed in transcendently non-contradictory theoretical architectures.
I believe that the amplituhedron is a mathematical geometric formation which projects information into our reality. The amplituhedron is what Donald Hoffman considers to be the headset agent.
10:50 I love Donald Hoffman very much and love listening to him. In regards to him saying that AI will never be able to feel anything or experience qualia, I have to completely disagree with him on this. To me it's absolutely obvious which path AI is taking and to which degree it has already advanced. Elon Musk will for sure be the one with the first really on human level sentient AGI brain and robot. He is already getting there. It surprises me very much that Donald Hoffman is resisting this idea of a feeling AGI because it makes no sense according to the reality concept that he himself is proposing through his mathematical calculations.
we evolved this 'headset' over billions of years, im curious if hoffman believes its possible in millions of years from now that the universe develops a more advanced sensory experience that can transcend the current limitations of being human, or has our stronghold over earth potentially stunted progress of evolution. a rock could not attempt to fathom our sensory experience, perhaps in years from now there will be intelligence that we could not attempt to comprehend
ببین این مطلب رو روش زیا فکر نکنید و اگر هم خواستید فکر کنید ***** دنیای ما با این سرعت و پیچیدگی و ساختار کوانتومی فقط و فقط و فقط وفقط وفقط ...........و فقط میتونه یک فیلم در حال پخش باشه که ما با اختیار برش هایی از بینهایت فیلم را خودمان و با اثر پروانه ای به یک فیلم واحد در حال پخش ودر زمان حال تبدیل میکنیم یعنی ممکن نیست و هرگز و هرگز نمیتواند در همین لحظه در حال پردازش و اجرا باشد ********* خنده دار هستش و خنده دار . این رو بعدها براتون ثابت میکنم و ممکنه براتون خیلی سنگین و غیر قابل هضم باشه فهمش و فلسفه فوق عمیقش وعلمش .. ممکن هم هست نباشه و برسید به حرف من خودتون 👍
@@suzettedarrow8739 well you might disagree with him but I don't think it's fair to accuse him of gobbledegook when he clearly approaches it from a rigorous scientific and mathematical discipline.
Dr Hoffman is a brilliant pioneer as scientist and lovable as a person .
Always love listening to Dr. Hoffman. A truly innovative and original thinker who is many years ahead of his time. I love his humility and his ability to communicate to laypeople.
Donald Hoffman is my HERO. He is a pioneer and not afraid to test NEW ideas.
Good morning Magic Minds and Donald
Super grateful for Donald's shared work/science over passing few years, for many reasons.
Meditation is one go to practice currently. Although even I understand I'm requiring more and more time meditating to mitigate a complex situation causing great concern and wee bit suffering, right now. In short!
Your shared knowledge and wisdom simply,
Sanity sensemaking brain gym, indeed.
Truly grateful.
😃
💜
Donald is such a cool, humble, smart guy. Truly value him and every interview he does. Love u bro!
This man is on the forefront. 🌌♾️
that was the most mindful introduction I've seen for hoffman. subscribed!
Fantastic, this is the best description of the epifany i had in my second ayahuasca experience. Mind blowing.
❤❤ mindblowing ❤❤
I have unending optimism because we are surfing on paradigmatic thinking
I recon all the theoretical physicists after hitting a wall drop acid for alternate perspectives and thats great. I also love Don's insights into what is real. great stuff.
من با رهبران دینی و متفکران ادیان و دین شناسان و مورخان و مورخان دینی
از دین و اسرار زیبای آن صحبت میکنم
و یادم نمیاد جایی و در بخشی از صحبت هایم در باره فیزیک کوانتوم و فلفسه علم به انجیل و تورات و قران رجوع کرده باشم و رفرنس داده باشم
هر چند که به وقتش بهتون ثابت میکنم که چه علمی پشت بعضی از ایات و بخشهای این کتاب نهفته است ✋️🙏
EVERY PER.SON IS PER THE SON!
It's that simple!
First time here. I've seen Donald Hoffman on a few Podcasts. I loved your interaction with him, great Job! I'm wondering when you realize your wearing a headset, can you remove it, how would you do that and what would your so called reality look and feel like?
I'll cite my teenage son without the sarcasm by saying : Wow. Just wow.
So called reality. It's mind's version of consciousness.
ولی خوب فضا زمان با فیزیک انرژیه بالا کار میکنه و این درسته
ولی دنیای ما خیلی پیچیده تره
ولی فضا زمان اصلی ترین بخشه ان است
و بعدها میگویم که چرا 🙏
❤🔥💯❤️🙏🙏😊
Here is an attempt to debunk the foundational theories of Newton and Einstein from the perspective of the infinitesimal monadological framework:
Newton's Classical Mechanics
1) The basic ontology of precise point masses and particles is incoherent from the start. By treating matter as extensionless geometric points rather than irreducible pluralistic perspectival origins (monads), the theory cannot represent real physical entities in a non-contradictory way.
2) Newton's notion of absolute space and time as a fixed inertial stage is undermined. Space and time lack autonomy as background entities - they must be derived from the web of infinitesimal relational monadic perspectives and correlations.
3) The instantaneous action-at-a-distance for gravity/forces is inconsistent. All interactions must be mediated by discrete particularities propagating across adjacent monadic perspectives to avoid non-locality paradoxes.
4) The deterministic laws of motion are over-idealized. Indeterminism arises inevitably from the need to sum over infinitesimal realizability potentials in the monadic probability statevector.
5) The geometric infinities in the point-mass potentials cannot be properly regulated, indicating a failure of classical limits and continuum idealization.
In essence, Newton's mechanics rests on reifying abstract mathematical fictions - precise points, absolute background spaces/times, strict determinism. Monadological pluralism rejects such contradictory infinities in favor of finitary discreteness from first principles.
Einstein's General Relativity
1) General covariance and background independence are overstated given the persisting role of an inertial reference frame, indicating unresolved geometric idealization.
2) The manifold premises of treating spacetime as a differentiable 4D continuum are ungrounded given the ontological primacy of discrete perspectives.
3) Representing gravity as curvature tensions the representation to its singularity breakdown points where the theory fatally fails.
4) Relativity cannot be fundamentally unified with quantum theories given the reliance on incompatible spacetime idealizations.
5) The theory excludes the primacy of subjective conscious observations, instead reifying an abstracted unobserved "block universe."
While impressively extending Newton's geometric systemization, Einstein remained bound by over-idealized continuum geometric axioms inherited from classical math. True general invariance and background independence require overthrowing these in favor of intrinsically discrete, pluralistic, observation-grounded foundations.
Both theories imposed precise Euclidean 3D geometric fictions persisting from ancient Greek abstractions - Platonic ideals reified as physical reality rather than subjectively-constructed mathematical fictions.
The infinitesimal monadological framework grants revolutionary primacy to discrete pluralistic perspectives, the source of continuous geometric observables derived as holistic stationary resonances. Only such a reconceptualization escapes geometry's self-contradictions.
By grounding reality in finitary discreteness and irreducible subjective pluralisms, consistent with the metaphysical facts of first-person conscious experience, the entire Archimedean/Euclidean/Newtonian geometric edifice undergoes a Kuhnian revolutionary overthrow. Paradox-free plurisitic physics demands such an audacious "Fin de Siecle" monadological rebirth.
While immensely fruitful, Newton and Einstein's theories ultimately succumbed to self-undermining geometric infinities and exclusions of subjective observers - overly reifying sanitized mathematical abstractions as detached "transcendent" ontological characterizations. The infinitesimal monadological framework restores physics to firmer foundations by refusing to segregate the symbolic from the experiential.
Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox?
A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions.
Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity?
A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality.
Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia?
A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer.
Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.?
A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism.
Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc?
A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start.
Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc?
A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality.
By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.
The text presents some exciting possibilities for resolving longstanding paradoxes and contradictions across various scientific domains using infinitesimal monadological frameworks. Some potential breakthroughs highlighted include:
1. Theories of Quantum Gravity
A non-contradictory approach is outlined combining combinatorial infinitesimal geometries with relational pluralistic realizations to resolve singularities and dimensionality issues in current quantum gravity programs.
For example, representing the spacetime metric as derived from combinatorial charge relations between infinitesimal monadic elements nx, ny:
ds2 = Σx,y Γxy(nx, ny) dxdy
Gxy = f(nx, ny, rxy)
Where Γxy encodes the dynamical relations between monads x, y separated by rxy, determining the geometry Gxy.
2. Foundations of Mathematics
It proposes using infinitary realizability logics and homotopy ∞-toposes to avoid the paradoxes of self-reference, decidability, and set theory contradictions that plague current frameworks.
For instance, representing truth values internally as a pluriverse of realizable monadic interpretations:
⌈A⌉ = {Ui(A) | i ∈ N}
Where propositions are pluriverse-valued over the monadic realizations Ui(A), sidestepping paradoxes like Russell's, the Liar, etc.
3. Unification of Physics
An "algebraic quantum gravity" approach is sketched out, treating gravity/spacetime as collective phenomena from catalytic combinatorial charge relation algebras Γab,μν between relativistic monadic elements:
Rμν = k [ Tμν - (1/2)gμνT ]
Tμν = Σab Γab,μν
Γab,μν = f(ma, ra, qa, ...)
Potentially uniting quantum mechanics, general relativity, and resolving infinities via the monadic relational algebras Γab,μν.
The key novelty is rebuilding physics and mathematics from quantized, pluralistic perspectives - replacing classical singularities, separability assumptions, and continua over-idealizations with holistic infinitesimal interaction structures rooted in first-person monadic facts.
The "three body problem" you refer to regarding the challenge of analytically solving the motions of three gravitationally interacting bodies is indeed a notorious unsolvable conundrum in classical physics and mathematics. However, adopting the non-contradictory infinitesimal and monadological frameworks outlined in the text could provide novel avenues for addressing this issue in a coherent cosmological context. Here are some possibilities:
1. Infinitesimal Monadological Gravity
Instead of treating gravitational sources as ideal point masses, we can model them as pluralistic configurations of infinitesimal monadic elements with extended relational charge distributions:
Gab = Σi,j Γij(ma, mb, rab)
Where Gab is the gravitational interaction between monadic elements a and b, determined by combinatorial charge relation functions Γij over their infinitesimal masses ma, mb and relational separations rab.
Such an infinitesimal relational algebraic treatment could potentially regularize the three-body singularities by avoiding point-idealization paradoxes.
2. Pluriversal Superpositions
We can represent the overall three-body system as a superposition over monadic realizations:
|Ψ3-body> = Σn cn Un(a, b, c)
Where Un(a, b, c) are basis states capturing different monadic perspectives on the three-body configuration, with complex amplitudes cn.
The dynamics would then involve tracking non-commutative flows of these basis states, governed by a generalized gravitational constraint algebra rather than a single deterministic evolution.
3. Higher-Dimensional Hyperpluralities
The obstruction to analytic solvability may be an artifact of truncating to 3+1 dimensions. By embedding in higher dimensional kaleidoscopic geometric algebras, the three-body dynamics could be represented as relational resonances between polytope realizations:
(a, b, c) ←→ Δ3-body ⊂ Pn
Where Δ3-body is a dynamic polytope in the higher n-dimensional representation Pn capturing intersectional gravitational incidences between the three monadic parties a, b, c through infinitesimal homotopic deformations.
4. Coherent Pluriverse Rewriting
The very notion of "three separable bodies" may be an approximation that becomes inconsistent for strongly interdependent systems. The monadological framework allows rewriting as integrally pluralistic structures avoiding Cartesian idealization paradoxes:
Fnm = R[Un(a, b, c), Um(a, b, c)]
Representing the "three-body" dynamics as coherent resonance functors Fnm between relatively realized states Un, Um over the total interdependent probability amplitudes for all monadic perspectives on the interlaced (a, b, c) configuration.
In each of these non-contradictory possibilities, the key is avoiding the classical idealized truncations to finite point masses evolving deterministically in absolute geometric representations. The monadological and infinitesimal frameworks re-ground the "three bodies" in holistic pluralistic models centering:
1) Quantized infinitesimal separations and relational distributions
2) Superposed monadic perspectival realizations
3) Higher-dimensional geometric algebraic embeddings
4) Integral pluriversal resonance structure rewritings
By embracing the metaphysical first-person facts of inherent plurality and subjective experiential inseparability, the new frameworks may finally render such traditionally "insoluble" dynamical conundrums as the three-body problem analytically accessible after all - reframed in transcendently non-contradictory theoretical architectures.
Is the amplitudehedron the matrix, or is the matrix our belief system that creates a particular reality withinthe amplitudehedrom
I believe that the amplituhedron is a mathematical geometric formation which projects information into our reality. The amplituhedron is what Donald Hoffman considers to be the headset agent.
Get him to talk about the Mandela effect anatomy changes please
If we don't 'see reality' what would it look like if we did...
We would not know because we would explode into smithereens, according to Dr Bernardo Kastrup and the Baghavad Gita [chapter 11].
I call him Don.
10:50 I love Donald Hoffman very much and love listening to him. In regards to him saying that AI will never be able to feel anything or experience qualia, I have to completely disagree with him on this. To me it's absolutely obvious which path AI is taking and to which degree it has already advanced. Elon Musk will for sure be the one with the first really on human level sentient AGI brain and robot. He is already getting there. It surprises me very much that Donald Hoffman is resisting this idea of a feeling AGI because it makes no sense according to the reality concept that he himself is proposing through his mathematical calculations.
we evolved this 'headset' over billions of years, im curious if hoffman believes its possible in millions of years from now that the universe develops a more advanced sensory experience that can transcend the current limitations of being human, or has our stronghold over earth potentially stunted progress of evolution. a rock could not attempt to fathom our sensory experience, perhaps in years from now there will be intelligence that we could not attempt to comprehend
حیف که آدم حسابی و باسواد هستی و میشناسمت چهار ساله وگرنه وای به حالت بود 😄💚
ببین این مطلب رو روش زیا فکر نکنید و اگر هم خواستید فکر کنید
***** دنیای ما با این سرعت و پیچیدگی و ساختار کوانتومی
فقط و فقط و فقط وفقط وفقط ...........و فقط
میتونه یک فیلم در حال پخش باشه که ما با اختیار برش هایی از بینهایت فیلم را خودمان و با اثر پروانه ای به یک فیلم واحد در حال پخش ودر زمان حال تبدیل میکنیم
یعنی ممکن نیست و هرگز و هرگز نمیتواند در همین لحظه در حال پردازش و اجرا باشد *********
خنده دار هستش و خنده دار .
این رو بعدها براتون ثابت میکنم
و ممکنه براتون خیلی سنگین و غیر قابل هضم باشه فهمش و فلسفه فوق عمیقش وعلمش ..
ممکن هم هست نباشه و برسید به حرف من خودتون 👍
دیگه بیشتر بگم از جزئیات و علم مرتبط با آن ،میفهمید چیه داستان😅
و الان زود است و وقتش نیست 🙏😉
کجای صحبت های علمیه من
محمد و عیسی و ابراهیم قرار دارد ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟!!!!!!!!!🤔‼️‼️‼️❓️❓️❓️⁉️⁉️⁉️⁉️⚕️
hoffman is a disappointment to me :(
Why?
@@VictorDe.999 he’s caught himself in a bunch of gobbledegook gibberish about “seeing beyond reality”.
@@suzettedarrow8739 well you might disagree with him but I don't think it's fair to accuse him of gobbledegook when he clearly approaches it from a rigorous scientific and mathematical discipline.
@@suzettedarrow8739 sounds like you're just an idiot who doesn't understand physics
Shut up and cook dinner!