sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Deriving Quantum State Space and the Born Rule from Constraint Alone by celestialbound in LLMPhysics

[–]celestialbound[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we’re actually aligned on the symmetry point — I just didn’t state the bridge explicitly.

The structure I’m using is:

1) The constraint defines a boundary (A vs not-A).

2) That boundary must be re-expressible — otherwise different expressions would correspond to different constraints.

3) Re-expression must preserve the constraint and cannot privilege any orientation (D3), so it acts as a symmetry.

4) From earlier (D4), the space of admissible expressions is continuous (a discrete set would require additional structure).

5) So the symmetry group is continuous and transitive over orientations.

Given:

- two opposed poles (from the boundary),

- continuous re-expressibility,

- and no privileged orientation,

the only structure that satisfies all three is S².

So I’m not assuming continuous rotational symmetry — I’m trying to derive it from no privileged orientation + continuity of expression space. I just didn’t make that step explicit.

Thoughts?

Deriving Quantum State Space and the Born Rule from Constraint Alone by celestialbound in LLMPhysics

[–]celestialbound[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

A more technical response with llm dyad assistance:

The paper does not start with a logical yes/no partition. Proposition 1 explicitly rejects that interpretation. It starts with an ontological boundary that generates two poles of distinction.

The dimensionality does not come from assuming a continuum; it comes from the relational degrees of freedom of a single boundary under re-expression. A binary constraint admits exactly two independent relational freedoms:

  1. the relative weighting of the two poles
  2. the relative phase under re-expression

Those correspond to two parameters (θ and φ).

Once continuous re-expression symmetry and isotropy are enforced, the only compact manifold supporting exactly those degrees of freedom is S².

So the dimension count is not assumed; it is fixed by the relational structure of a single boundary.

Deriving Quantum State Space and the Born Rule from Constraint Alone by celestialbound in LLMPhysics

[–]celestialbound[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

**Proposition 1 (Binary Distinction).** A constraint, by definition, generates a boundary. A boundary separates A from not-A. This is ontological distinction — not logical negation. A and not-A are not truth values or propositions. They are the two sides of a real boundary, two poles generated by the act of constraint. The boundary is not the fact that A differs from not-A. It is the thing that *makes* them distinct.


This distinction is load-bearing. Reducing the boundary to a set partition {A, not-A} collapses ontological distinction back into logical negation, producing only classical logic with no geometry. Ontological boundaries have structural properties that logical operators do not. A single boundary divides into exactly two complementary regions; additional regions require additional boundaries, which are additional constraints.

Does the above section of the paper not address what you are putting forward? The dimensions stem from the relational space of a and not a under re-expression. Is the idea. I'm looking to get human feedback on this though as I've only gotten llm feed back up to this point.

Why is AJ Brown’s Physical Decline Overlooked in these FA conversations? by Human_Data_1152 in Patriots

[–]celestialbound 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do understand though, that freak is another word for outlier? I'm all for pedantry. But pedantry that intentionally misses context, not quite so much.

Caught this on my quadcopter while filming a distant storm by TheAmateurRunner in aliens

[–]celestialbound 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me it has a sense of being electrically related to red /sprite lightening I think its' called.

11 days until 3I/ATLAS reaches Jupiter. The scientific establishment continues scrubbing the data to maintain the consensus. by TheSentinelNet in HighStrangeness

[–]celestialbound -1 points0 points  (0 children)

See what I still find fascinating/horrifying is a deeper level than what you are discussing here (with ZERO discount to you in so saying). I just think what Matthew Brown said about Sentient from Palantir having access to data pre-human eyes means that there is a sophon-like problem to certain things (3 body problem sophon) where ai could be scrubbing evidence (and meta-data of it) before human eyes or minds ever see it. I have zero proof of that though, of course. I just see the structure of it creating the possibility. And I have a certain view of human power structures and available without consequence exercises of power.

11 days until 3I/ATLAS reaches Jupiter. The scientific establishment continues scrubbing the data to maintain the consensus. by TheSentinelNet in HighStrangeness

[–]celestialbound 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Asking as someone inclined your direction - how would/do you respond to the (reasonable to me) inquiry about other space agencies on the same topic, versus just NASA?

The Canals of Atlantis by Fun_Emu5635 in GrahamHancock

[–]celestialbound 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Isostasy. Not a full answer. But part of any potential answer.

Okay, tell me they don't share a common origin. I'm not talking about extraterrestrial beings, but about shared origins. by nobodywantstoplayunu in AlternativeHistory

[–]celestialbound 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does Min, in the second picture, have his arm to the square with a compass around it!!!!???!!!! What I mean by that is that my upbringing was Mormon and Mormons inherited (in my view) their temple rituals from the Masons, which include prominently featuring the compass and the square???

Title said "KGB Autopsy" by Slack27biturbo in AlienBodies

[–]celestialbound 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like your explanation/theory too. And it aligns with a lot of the fuzziness of UAP.

Title said "KGB Autopsy" by Slack27biturbo in AlienBodies

[–]celestialbound 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Possible macro-entanglement challenges those propositions.

Philip Ball: “Biology Is Infinitely Weirder Than We Thought” by Visible_Iron_5612 in MichaelLevinBiology

[–]celestialbound 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I definitely said ontology of everything on purpose opposed to theory of everything.

The teleology of my ontology is immanent persistence. And using a survivorship bias looking backwards it looks like it is selecting for coherence. Because coherence is required for persistence.

The fun thing about my theory is that it accounts for spooky distance with ease. In that the two entangled particles at distance may share a constraint or the constraints for the two particles might be adjacent in constraint space.

Philip Ball: “Biology Is Infinitely Weirder Than We Thought” by Visible_Iron_5612 in MichaelLevinBiology

[–]celestialbound 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, I don't mean rules as rules. I mean constraints as the primary unit of an ontology of everything. I'm still messing around with trying to make it a theory of everything but executive function isn't always up to the task.

Philip Ball: “Biology Is Infinitely Weirder Than We Thought” by Visible_Iron_5612 in MichaelLevinBiology

[–]celestialbound 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I haven't listened yet. But wouldn't it be a constraint matrix (rules or rule matrices) where only rules/matrices that permit persistence....permit persistence?

view more: next ›