Ok, so we think that the number of states in the real world is g120 where g = e10. My goal is to articulate a Theory of Everything which will encompass all those states. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy postulated that the universe was an entity in evolution (cellular automata on a grand scale, running some sort of genetic algorithm) whose goal was to compute its very own meaning. We can sympathize with that view because we can empathize with such a universe. As part and parcel of this (perversely designed) scheme, I came up with an interim solution a few years ago, and it was * 43 *. (No kidding, that’s a pretty good ballpark estimate.)
So that was a number. Some others look for a theory in the form of an elegant mathematical equation. And there are those who look for a philosophical system which is able to explain the whole enchilada: life, the universe, and everything—without any internal contradictions.
So what is our origin? Let’s go back to the beginning (remember, this too, is a tacit assumption) of this universe, commonly called the Big Bang. Pursuant to M-theory (which is Witten’s unification of five competing string theories), we could imagine two “membranes” in friction - say Mr. Ying from dimension 6, and Ms. Yang from dimension 9, doing their crazy thing in Cosmic Motel 11. There are many degrees of freedom for this coupling to occur, many tantric positions, all topologically invariant - no ripping of brane surfaces. That wild interaction results in super-symmetry (physicists’ code word for high-energy simultaneous orgasm). Okay then, so what happens after the Big Bang? The Big Cigarette, of course. Nine months later (adjust here for any relativistic time dilation), we have a family of quarks as building blocks for our home, and our ourselves, brain included (which questions everything).
(Most children are not bothered by an infinite regress. One asked about the origin of the eleven dimensions. Surely in the very beginning there was nothing, so why was this nothingness situated in a pre-existing structure of n-dimensions? Why n=11? Perhaps because that’s the very least a theory requires? Economy of theory… take a deep breath, and ask yourself how many angels could stand shoulder-to-shoulder on a pinhead… exhale slowly, and laugh your head off.)
Those seriously seeking knowledge probably have come across the Buddhist text, The Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines. That’s still a lot of stuff to read and distill, so I have simplified that even further to one word: “AH !” It is an awesome word, expressing utter joy and comprehension (cf. Jacques Lacan’s analysis of the French term “jouissance“). Phonetically, you can now understand why people in the Indo-European tradition love the word God (pronounced “G’AaaH’d”) so much.
Yesterday I got curious about how one can reconcile the deterministic and stochastic theories of the universe (cf. relativity theory v. quantum mechanics). Why should the universe be homogeneous at all? Why do we even feel the need to unify dualities?
I have got to remember my other goal which is to simply Enjoy…
( http://www.43things.com/entries/view/37875 :-) before I get swept into the Black Hole in that sky above us all. (But do I also get to bring my annotated copy of Dante Alighieri’s Divina Commedia?)
[Etc notes] – Currently I am deciphering this message from another part of the universe (not so remote, in fact, it’s from California):
“String theory and its phenomenology shows its pedigree by asking for an exact solution of a purported theory of everything, which exhibits exact Poincare symmetry (a symmetry which is clearly only approximate in the real world). This theory is supposed to describe the scattering of particles in the real world, which is thus postulated to be insensitive to the cosmological nature of the universe. The basis for this assumption is locality, a property that is evidently only approximately true of string theory at low energy. Super Planckian scattering is dominated by black hole production, and the spectrum and properties of black holes of sufficiently high energy are definitely affected by the global structure of the universe.
A principal defect of this approach is that it already postulates two mathematically consistent solutions of the theory of everything, namely the real, cosmological, world, and the exact Poincare invariant solution. In fact, as is well known, the situation is much worse than that. There are many disconnected continuous families of Poincare invariant solutions of string theory. They have various dimensions, low energy fields, and topologies, but they all share the property of exact SUSY. The program of string phenomenology is to find a SUSY violating, Poincare invariant solution of the theory, which describes low energy scattering in the real world.”
For more details, see
A Critique of pure string theory: Heterodox opinions of diverse dimensions by T. Banks [2003] at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0306/0306074.pdf ... or more generally, see Edward Witten’s publications http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/
BLACK HOLES- where astrophysical objects meet their quantum demise as a singularity - were theoretically discovered about 1916. Jacques Lacan’s indirect interpretation is fascinating, summed by what he calls “troumatisme” (best translation: hole-ness; note word play on trauma)—the absence of the Other creates a void which manifests as a hole in memory
that beckons desire and nothingness. The Freudian angle is kind of obvious: death wish / an obsession deplacing the pleasure principle superimposed over bodily orifices. But then there is George Bataille’s notion of transgression, and getting to the dense compact core of the so-called “limit experience” which is mystical and ineffiable in nature. Sex becomes a rehearsal of the more vast limit experience. Or so we think …, when in fact, it is a just another ruse by Nature, to propagate the species in its relentless effort to refine its collective Intelligence in order to understand its own meaning.
[On cue] The large black obelisk from Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey makes its re-appearance. [Voice-over] Science is a carefully crafted approximation, and thus shall perpetually be fiction. Scientific truths are social constructs, useful compared to other constructs, such as books and films. Have you noticed that whenever we invent a new mathematical tool, a new natural phenomenon pops out? Examples: Riemannian geometry => relativistic space-time curvature; Measure theoretic probability => wave-particle duality; Group theory => classification and deduction of quarks. My working hypothesis is that mathematics is no different than a natural language; yes, just another social construct with rigorous rules—a fun game, for in this century, we get to play with STRINGS.
(CHILD play: do you remember how you assigned the role of horse to that broom? That excitement as you went faster and faster was felt as real emotion. That distant memory (stored as some configuration of the neural network in your brain) still exists and lingers now…...... ADULT play: assigning universal significance to symbols, especially Greek letters with both sub and superscripts. Don’t forget that natural JOY as you played as a child… and those stories that you shared with your imaginary friends.)
Events in the world serve as encoded messages. Some of those messages are informational, if interpreted correctly. Others are problems that put us to the test. We are free to do nothing, or to invest any amount of energy to solve them. (Few problems are inherently unsolvable—designed mainly to perturb computational entities; for example, Zen koans in practice.) Notice that we are agents in this scheme, meaning that we too can generate messages in the event format. How? By simply acting, we create an event.
So if a series of events is a packet of messages, then it is easy to see that our life is a book, a narrative of how specific events and realized messages have interwined. (Do you really need to write your autobiography? No, it is already inscribed upon the world. You have carved out your niche in the world and shaped it, that is, your actions have put “your mark on the world,” your signature on the title page.)
One of the most interesting revelations in the previous century was the impossibility of shutting out the “neutral” observer in any sub-atomic experiment. Well, Shakespeare got it right, the world is our stage; we are nothing but actors. Our shared stories, if they are retold, will assume the status of myths. The largest scale experiment being conducted is LIFE itself—and it’s occurring within each of us now. Eventually, all this shall dissolve, like an “insubstantial pageant faded, leave not a rack behind.”
Imagine a young child at the scene of a brutal car collision where both parents have died. That’s a possible local state of this universe. She is crying, and in unimaginable pain. Is her suffering also an element of that state space? What theory could possibly console her? Is explanation what she really needs?
At some point, we cross the line from discovering reality to manufacturing reality. (Cinema buffs like to think that the M in M-theory stands for Matrix).
At the funeral, relatives tell the child that her parents have gone to Heaven. Ultimately, it’s a story about an unobservable dimension, where refutation by experimental means is not possible. Unverifiable, it can remain true forever. Our hopes and dreams demand this—for otherwise, our lives becomes absurd (cf. Albert Camus v. religions in general), and our child’s heart stays crushed.
So is it really about particles colliding and the elegance of a master equation? If there was a flickr of a shadow on the walls at CERN (supersymmetry voyeurs), our nature demands investigation into its substance, or we will infer one. The snake in the dark cave, in our global mythologies, usually turns out to be a rope in the bright morning light.
My Theory of Everything must address this antinomy: suffering, and the heart of a child. Otherwise, the entire exercise is just a very elaborate anomaly. Perhaps we need to stop feeding the seductive mind which constantly constructs narratives—by becoming still in our awareness of silence. Beauty is the deepest of all mysteries.
