#quantum logic

So, I did some new art right now. I used a white Faber-Castell artist pen brush on a black DIN A5 piece of paper (220 g/m^2).

The Mystery at the Heart of Physics That Only Math Can Solve | Quanta Magazine

Interesting article. I would like to add my thoughts about that quote:

"Every other idea that’s been used in physics over the past centuries had its natural place in mathematics. This is clearly not the case with quantum field theory." - Nathan Seiberg, the Institute for Advanced Study

Non-linear axiomatic networks [chaotic processes in non-linear axiomatic systems - say, Quantum Logic] might be the base for the mathematics of QFT - It's time to bring the 21st century in mathematics, I'd say. The mathematics for probabilistic phenomena such as Quantum Mechanics, might not be discovered yet, yet it does not imply it does not exist.

In other words, part of my study deals with Quantum Mechanics being a special threshold or interface between a mathematical reality, entirely information-based, and the physical manifestation thereof. It could explain phenomena such as entanglement and superposition, and furthermore could concretize what a wave function collapse might be - translated into a language human imagination could possibly comprehend.

Vijay Balasubramanian has some very nice ideas. His polymath-approach makes me really happy. I love how he bounces back and forth between physics, mathematics and neuroscience.

That question is really thrilling to answer, to be honest.

We have to define 'absolute truth' first.

If we consider this "absolute truth" as logical consistency, then I'd like to introduce Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems:

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, for instance, state that mathematics will never be complete, because it will always have parts that cannot be proven. Either it is incomplete, but consistent, or complete but inconsistent (in form of being self-referent).

Mathematics cannot prove itself by its own rules, WITHIN its own system.

As for another track of thoughts/perspctive: (Now it becomes an utter mess... And I am sorry for leaping between multiple different conceptions rn. My thinking process IS like what I describe here - a sort of "extraction process" of "truth", or correct and exact thoughts. )

The only "absolute truth" there is, is actually that there is none - as a kind of "structure" at least, as in a "static", non-chaotic linear axiomatic system (Classical logic). When it comes to non-linear axiomatic systems [networks] (inserting chaos theory in meta-math - neat feedback-loop INSIDE mathematics as recursive system itself btw) I would rather refer to such "truth" as a process of oscillating around the most exact reality description - the symmetry axis is hence the equilibrium state and the actual structure of absolute truth. But- this is exceeding the margin now - The absolute state is an information singularity I call "invertium". Reaching that equilibrium causes an 'inversion', a process of inner polarity. That recursive inner polarity IS that absolute truth.

Furtherly, I somehow sense a strange logical twisted mindfuck fusing Gödel's Incompleteness with my concepts on non-linear axiomatic [networks] (Quantum logic, in a sense). (Transcendence of a paradox, huh???)

Also, in regards of these trains of thought, "absolute truth" is what I would call a "superposed entangled state of all truths and lies" - like an information singularity. A state in which an Invertium happens - the indistinguishabilty of two extreme states - 100% dense information can't be distinguished from a 0% one. A singularity is hence, in a sense, an isolated [conservative] system itself, from a rough viewpoint.

What happens in this state? I suppose a desintegration of said information as "self/own complex", and integration of its information parts into its super-ordinate medium. (That is how I interpret entanglement) (The information strangely "dissolves"/integrates.)

Absolute truth bears every partial truth - and all partial truths, well, I would refer here to Feynman's Path integrals, virtual pairs in Feynman-diagrams and statistical mechanics.

And I am sorry for the confusion. Maybe one day I will be able to turn these highly compressed thoughts into fathomable chunks.

Interesting... One of my approaches to correct my cognitive processing via metacognition are very similar... The concept I could finally map fairly detailled some weeks ago, and reading articles on Quantum Bayesian Optimization now. .. well, I see very similar patterns, even with incredible amount of detail considered in both realm...

There Is Such A Thing As Absolute Truth: Planes Fly… And that’s enabled by ABSOLUTE TRUTH… Not everything is relative, and especially not truth. The fact that planes fly proves that there is such a thing as absolute truth. Each plane crash is examined in excruciating detail to determine where there was a deviation from the right, correct and true. Any theocrats boarding a plane agrees to…

In other words, allegedly modern philosophers think we absolutely need an operation whose truth table is equivalent to "(P and Q) or ((not P) and Q) or ((not P) and (not Q))".

But, like... I see that as clearly unnecessary. What I see as necessary is "P adjusts the probability of Q".

And of course "P implies Q" is just a special case of "P adjusts the probability of Q", where the probability of P can only be 0 or 1 and not anywhere in between, and if it is 1 then the probability of Q is adjusted to 1. But that's profoundly unreasonable and unrealistic, and that adjustment is an infinitely strong adjustment.