- #1
Kea
- 859
- 0
Let's vote
Fundamental Vote: Is It or Isn't It?
- Thread starter Kea
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Fundamental
In summary, the conversation discusses different approaches to quantum gravity and how they are all subsets of computation. The most fundamental structure is computation, and all other structures are variations of it.
- #2
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,894
- 11
Categories si! Computational logic, I don't think so. CDT is interesting but not basic. I still like Thiemann and the Phoenix program, in spite of the non-covariance of canonical quantization. But if the Phoenix crashes there are still spin foam path integrals. Therefore loops.
- #3
kneemo
- 118
- 3
String Theory and M-theory get absorbed into Matrix theory in the nonperturbative regime. But Matrix theory is just an example of noncommutative geometry (or more properly nonassociative geometry). Loops, in holonomy flux *-algebra form, has much in common with Matrix theory. This is why I explored a Jordan GNS construction for a Jordan holonomy flux *-algebra. A Yang-Mills/diffeomorphism invariant state seems to exist in that case.
Categories nicely surface in noncommutative geometry as well, via K-homology. This is because an element of the K-homology group can be obtained by an object of the derived category of coherent sheaves (hep-th/9902116). K-homology, in Matrix theory, describes D-brane worldvolume configurations.
It is a challenge to generate a CDT from noncommutative geometry, though I'm not certain a strict triangulation would emerge. I'm even less sure about the role of time in a physical theory based on noncommutative geometry.
I'm voting something else entirely for now, in hope that all the above will become facets of a deeper, PF theory.
Categories nicely surface in noncommutative geometry as well, via K-homology. This is because an element of the K-homology group can be obtained by an object of the derived category of coherent sheaves (hep-th/9902116). K-homology, in Matrix theory, describes D-brane worldvolume configurations.
It is a challenge to generate a CDT from noncommutative geometry, though I'm not certain a strict triangulation would emerge. I'm even less sure about the role of time in a physical theory based on noncommutative geometry.
I'm voting something else entirely for now, in hope that all the above will become facets of a deeper, PF theory.
Last edited:
- #4
setAI
- 472
- 1
computation defines the basic units of existence [bits] and causality [logic]- nothing can be more basic/fundamental than bits that are either on or off- and no causality or dynamics more fundamental than Boolean logic which defines any possible action/relationship- all these other approaches- and indeed any possible theory of quantum gravity is merely a sub-set of possible computations- there are no conceivable systems that cannot be perfectly described and rendered through computation- therefore any formalism 'more fundamental' than computation could not posess any causal structure or quantifiable properties- it could have no form or relationships because all possible forms and relationships are types of computations- so computation is axiomatically fundamental- that is the most fundamental definable/quantifiable structure/system possible
edit:I think it is important to realize that ALL possible theories of QG-strings/loops/CDT/quantum geometry/black-hole thermodynamics- are in fact subsets or types of Computation/categories/causal sets- they are different kinds of algorithms built up from observation an mathematics-
the sooner you see this the sooner you will realize that the right path to Quantum Gravity is not endless piddling with different kinds of algorithms- instead look at the wiring of the 'computer' itself and see what algorithms naturally emerge from it
edit:I think it is important to realize that ALL possible theories of QG-strings/loops/CDT/quantum geometry/black-hole thermodynamics- are in fact subsets or types of Computation/categories/causal sets- they are different kinds of algorithms built up from observation an mathematics-
the sooner you see this the sooner you will realize that the right path to Quantum Gravity is not endless piddling with different kinds of algorithms- instead look at the wiring of the 'computer' itself and see what algorithms naturally emerge from it
Last edited:
- #5
Curious6
- 184
- 0
I don't see why the majority of people on this sub-forum are so anti-stringy. M-Theory has many more researchers than any other approach to quantum gravity, and it is probably for a reason. No doubt it is going through a hard moment now with the string landscape, but that doesn't mean it is wrong, maybe just that it has been heading temporarily down the wrong path. Probably when a nonperturbative formulation of M-theory is found it will provide the most unified and fundamental framework of theoretical physics.
- #6
Mike2
- 1,313
- 0
String theory/ M-theory have branes and strings as submanifolds imbedded in a background spacetime which is not explained. What obviously needs to be done is to explain where spacetime came from to begin with and how particles arise from that. CDT seems to be the most direct approach. I think that strings and LQG will turn out to be some holomorphic properties of spacetime distortions.Curious6 said:
- #7
Locrian
- 1,881
- 256
Whichever one provides actual experimental data - perferably lots of it. The choice list seems light on topics that include that though...
FAQ: Fundamental Vote: Is It or Isn't It?
1. What is a fundamental vote?
A fundamental vote is a type of voting system where individuals cast their votes based on their own personal beliefs and values, rather than following a specific party or candidate. It is also known as a conscience vote or free vote.
2. How is a fundamental vote different from a regular vote?
In a regular vote, individuals typically vote based on party affiliation or the policies and promises of a specific candidate. In a fundamental vote, individuals are free to vote based on their own personal beliefs and values, regardless of party lines or candidate platforms.
3. When is a fundamental vote used?
A fundamental vote is typically used for significant or controversial issues, where individuals may have strong personal opinions and may not align with their party's stance. This type of voting is also used in some parliamentary systems, where members may vote based on their own conscience rather than the party's instructions.
4. What are the advantages of a fundamental vote?
One of the main advantages of a fundamental vote is that it allows individuals to vote based on their own personal beliefs and values, rather than being constrained by party lines. This can lead to a more diverse range of opinions being represented and potentially better decision making. It can also promote greater individual accountability and responsibility for voting decisions.
5. What are the potential drawbacks of a fundamental vote?
One potential drawback of a fundamental vote is that it can lead to divided or inconsistent decision making, as individuals may vote based on personal opinions rather than a cohesive party platform. It can also make it more difficult for a governing body to pass legislation if members are not aligned on certain issues. Additionally, it may be challenging to accurately gauge public opinion if individuals are not voting along party lines.