Eight Things a First Principles Theory of Everything Should Possess

Klee Irwin, Research Director of Quantum Gravity Research
Klee@QuantumGravityResearch.org

ABSTRACT: A first principles theory of everything has never been achieved. An E8 derived code
of quantized spacetime could meet the following suggested requirements: (1) First principles
explanation of time dilation, inertia, the magnitude of the Planck constant and the speed of light
(2) First principles explanation of conservation laws and gauge transformation symmetry. (2)
Must be fundamentally relativistic with nothing that is invariant being absolute. (4) Pursuant to
the deduction that reality is fundamentally information-theoretic, all information must be
generated by observation/measurement at the simplest Planck scale of the code/language. (5)
Must be non-deterministic. (6) Must be computationally efficient. (7) Must be a code
describing “jagged” (quantized) waveform – a waveform language. (8) Must have a first
principles explanation for preferred chirality in nature.

Following, is a list and brief justification for eight qualities that a first principles theory of everything
must possess. This draft has not yet had references inserted. We apologize to the reader and can
provide references upon request until such time that we updated the draft with references.

1. First principles explanation of time dilation, inertia, the magnitude of the Planck constant and
the speed of light. These two constants describe all others.

2. First principles explanation of conservation laws and gauge transformation symmetry. The
convertible (variant) gauge transformations of standard model particles/forces and gravity into
one another are known to correspond to the invariant E8 polytope. A fundamental model must
explain this correspondence from first principles.

3. Must be fundamentally relativistic with nothing that is invariant being absolute. All particles
and forces would be decomposed into the invariant E8 lattice and the prototile cells of its cut
and projected quasicrystals.

4. Pursuant to the deduction that reality is fundamentally information-theoretic, all information
must be generated by observation/measurement at the simplest Planck scale of the
code/language. A mathematical operator in the language must possess some notion of
consciousness, which implies choice. The simplest choice scheme possible is binary, where a
choice exists between two states. The code may not require a binary choice, but if there
appears to be a more complex choice of states than binary, we must eliminate the possibility of
decomposing the choice scheme to a binary one.

5. Must be non-deterministic. Quantum mechanics indicates that if a quantum gravity code
exists, it should have a non-deterministic (random) component. Certain popular theories in
philosophy and psychology indicate that free will is real. For these reasons, we adopt the axiom
that either randomness and/or freewill are real, which does not permit the code to behave as a
deterministic algorithm. It is a non-deterministic algorithm, wherein one or more steps in the
base algorithm are either random or are operated by mathematical operator making choices
that are equivalent to measurements/observations. We call this mathematical action/choice
the “hinge variable”. Of the two possibilities of “randomness” acting on the hinge variable or
freewill choice of a conscious-type operator, the latter option is preferable because of the fact
that abstract information cannot exist outside of a conscious “actualizer” of the information.
And we have deduced that reality is information-theoretic. Also, a model with randomness
would require a first principles explanation for randomness if it were to be a true first principles
theory of everything. Consciousness, on the other hand, has some reasonable explanations
from modern science in the form of notions of emergence, self-organization resulting from
simple rules, evolution and neural networks.

6. Must be computationally efficient. One of the most fundamental aspects of nature is the
principle of least action and the derivative idea used in all modern unification theories,
Noether’s (2nd) theorem. These are classical or “smooth” equations. A first principles quantized
explanation for these equations must be explained by the quantized spacetime code/language
we speak of. In 2007, Robert Numrich published his theory of the principle of computational
least action. Our formalism will treat Planck’s constant as a unit of measurement by the
aforementioned mathematical operator. The measurement of this operator registers and
relates a unit of information – a symbol used in the code/language of a quantized spacetime
network. The objective of nature – of this language operated by operators with some
semblance of consciousness – is to generate as much pattern as possible with as few “choices”
or units of computational/observational action. There is a logical need to have this behavior
serve as an explanation for the principle of least action. But, we will not just invent or seek for
this behavior to exist in the code. It will be shown from first principles why it is so. The deepest
reason explains why the principle of least action is so deeply part of Noether’s theorem and its
relationship to unification theories. Both Noether’s theorem and the principle of least action
will be shown to have their explanatory source in the Sum of Squares Law and the general idea
of transdimensional conversion of a polytope in one dimension to a polytope in a lower
dimension. In very simple and almost trivial terms: The projective transformation occurs in the
most efficient way possible, as can be shown from geometric first principles.

7. Must be a code describing “jagged” (quantized) waveform – a waveform language. Various
authors have published ideas about how the notion of a wave particle duality is a forced
correspondence from an older era of thought and that, really, we can see everything as
fundamentally vibration/waveform. However, the quantum view indicates that geometries of
these waves (wavelength and amplitude) should be discrete. Time or change is discrete (frozen
states instantly changing) and curvature can be thought of as emergent from some Planck
length spacetime tiles with discrete angles. The objective is to come up with a “jagged” or
quantized wave code/language, similar to waves in Penrose tilings, where a language of tile
matching rules can be used to describe wavelike (phason) patterns.

8. Must have a first principles explanation for preferred chirality in nature. Garrett Lisi’s theory
of E8 unification physics was an inspiration to us. However, the major peer criticism is that his
model does not explain chirality. Nature is mysteriously prejudiced toward right handed
chirality, as the weak nuclear force acts only on right handed particles.

All eight of these requirements can be satisfied using an E8 derived quasicrystal (QC) language. A
discussion of each follows.

1. First principles explanation of time dilation, inertia, the magnitude of the Planck constant and
the speed of light. The E8 quasicrystal model considers Planck length tetrahedra that can relate
in only a few ways, according to the natural rules of the QC. One fundamental allowed
configuration is called the “57-Group”, which is the electron. It is 56 tetrahedra around one and
looks similar to four intersecting icosahedra, where each is made of 20 tetrahedra. Because
they intersect, they share tetrahedra and only require 57 total. A Hamiltonian circuit can flow
through this object, which itself is a pattern within the quantized spacetime dynamic “mosaic”
of the QC. The circuit in the 57-Group occurs as a result of changes allowed in the dynamical
code and the pattern has a shape resembling a type of 3D trefoil knot. This Hamiltonian circuit
has a specific cycle, where a certain number of computational phason flips (prototile orientation
changes) occur before it repeats its pattern. For simplicity, let us say this circuit has 10 flips that
complete the full knot-like circuit that flows within it. We’ll call that a tick of the clock of the
electron – its internal time. Time at this level is just in pattern. We will call each phason flip
Planck unit – the minimum quantum of change or angular momentum. This is the non-divisible
expression of energy. So let us allocate 20 quanta of energy to this electron. With that, we can
allow it to experience two full Hamiltonian circuits, 10 phason flips or quanta of energy/change
per cycle. So we can say that it experienced its change or internal time in such a way that all 20
units of change were invested in its internal change, its two cycles. However, no electron is at
rest. And in order for such a pattern in a mosaic-like system of a dynamic QC to propagate like a
wave or particle, phason flips must be invested in the propagation also. The ratio can change.
But if we invest 10 phason flips to propagate the pattern forward in the spacetime QC, then we
only have 10 units left for its cycles of internal change. However, if we slow down its
propagation through space by using only 5 phason flips for forward motion, we now have 15 left
for its cycles, so no time goes faster for the electron. Or we can simply say that it experiences
more change internally and less travel through the mosaic like QC – less velocity. This is a fast
explanation of time dilation within our framework. Inertia is more complex. As something
changes velocity, it requires more computation to do the changing than it does to settle into a
new ratio of phasons used for forward propagation versus internal clock cycling. Each shift to a
new rational ratio of these two types of change (internal time versus movement through the QC
mosaic), wastes phason flips. A simple analogy is to imagine a chess piece on a board. We can
say that some ratio of investment of your quanta of change in a fixed velocity and fixed internal
clock speed requires zero transitional quanta of change because your values, the ratio, is fixed.
But if you change the ratio, you have to use quanta of change that are invested in neither
forward propagation through space nor internal cycles of time/change. The chess piece moving
in a straight line on the board 5 moves is very efficient at moving in that ratio. But changing to
another row of squares requires you to use one move to shift the piece to the right or to the
left. This moves you forward on neither of the two rows. This analogy could be too simple and
confuse the reader. The chess board we are talking about is a 4D QC of spacetime projected
from E8 in 8D to 4D. The code is a selection process from possible ratios of propagation through
space versus internal knot-like rotations that wind in one direction and then another, on
average winding towards the center of the 57-Group.

So when changing velocity, quanta of energy/change must be used for the change itself. And so
during the change, a drag force will be exerted on the 57-Group electron opposite the direction
of propagation. This is due to the abrupt change of ratio, where, temporarily during the change,
phason flips are robbed from both internal rotation and from propagation. Time will slow down
for the electron under this force that is equivalent to a strong gravitational field and so too will a
resistance to the forward motion be felt in the form of a compression of the 57-Group along and
opposite its direction of acceleration.

Now to explain the speed of light, let us go back to the example of giving the 57-group a total of
20 units of change/phason-flips. Let us say that we dial in the ratio of 0:20 where all 20 flips are
invested in propagating this pattern forward and 0 are used for its internal cycling. At that
point, time would stop for the electron. It would experience absolutely no change. But it would
be moving very fast. In fact, it could not possibly move any faster for that particular number of
20 units of phason flip change. A photon is not a knot like pattern that cycles back inwards
toward itself in its Hamiltonian circuit of phason flips. It looks more like a helix pattern of
tetrahedra. It has no internal clock because it has no circuit – not cycles. It therefore always
propagates with all its allocated energy – its units of change/phason-flips – at a ratio of 0:N,
where any amount of energy is invested 100% in forward propagation. There is a natural speed
limit for this cork-screw shaped pattern. Its units are Planck length. Its Planck units of action –
the quantized units of rotation – are of a specific value relative to the Planck length. Its
propagation magnitude, the speed of light, is something that we measure relative to a class of
change we label as “time” but which at this level is just a different pattern of phason flips in the
quasicrystal tiles. Our notion of time and that of our equipment and our minds is based on
fermions, such as electrons that have an internal clock time. That clock time has a theoretic
maximum when the ratio of cycle investment to velocity investment of change quanta is N:0.
This is the electron at rest, where time goes as fast as possible for it. The magnitudes of the
speed of light and the electron rest mass can be explained relative to the ratio range that we
have discussed herein. As this body of work takes more rigorous mathematical form, this
discussion herein will evolve with equations that link it to the first principles values allowed by
the natural E8 to 3D QC language.


2. First principles explanation of conservation laws and gauge transformation symmetry. Gauge
transformation symmetry of standard model particles and forces and gravity is known to
correspond to the E8 polytope/lattice. This is non-trivial and must be explained from first
principles by any theory of everything. E8 is a deeply fundamental object, as the maximum
sphere packing in 8D, an object living in the largest exceptional Lie group. Our E8 based QCs
encode this unifying gauge symmetry. A first principles explanation for conservation laws exists
in the idea that a projection of a polytope conserves lengths and angles under the Sum of
Squares Law and other Euclidean geometry axioms. A QC is a projection of multiple copies of
one or more polytopes, where there exists a fixed ratio of prototile and vertex types, regardless
of the infinite number of ways the tiles can be arranged within the matching rules and degrees
of freedom. In other words, these values are conserved under various allowed expressions. A
projection of a crystal or polytope can be thought of as a distribution of a conserved quantity of
edge lengths, where the conserved distribution looks different to different observers but where
the fundamental building blocks, the sum of squares of the edge lengths, is conserved regardless
of the observer. Here the term “observer” is identical to the projection subspace.

3. Must be fundamentally relativistic with nothing that is invariant being absolute. Particles,
forces, space and time are all variant – convertible to one another according to E8 related gauge
symmetry transformations. Everything in our framework is generated via observation,
specifically projection, of mathematical “choosers” that decide what to transform. They choose
according to the rules and freedom of a code. The fundamental action is that of a point
projector registering/measuring a single tetrahedral cell by selecting from a small set of possible
perspectives. Each perspective results in a transformation of the tetrahedron, relative to that
particular point projector.

4. The “uncomfortable” requirement for conscious choice as a mathematical operator within a
Planck scale quantum gravity formalism

All theories start with at least primitive of axiomatic assumptions. Here, we take the most
conservative approach in assuming that physical reality is fundamentally made of information,
an approach argued logically by scientists such as John Wheeler. The assumption that energy or
spacetime are fundamentally something more than information is an aggressive speculation
with no known logical support. We begin here with the deduced assumption that the base
“stuff” of reality is information. This leads to a fascinating requirement of a computational
entity or consciousness of some sort to actualize the information of the universe. For brevity’s
sake, we will not expound here how the very definition of information is tied into the notion of a
perceiver/measurer/chooser. One may say that the perceiver is also made of information. Or
one may say that the information resides within the perceiver and is therefore also made of
consciousness. But the two cannot be separated.

Frank Wilczek (physics Nobel 2004) expressed how this uncomfortable problem must be faced if
one hopes to make deep scientific progress in a theory of everything: The leading
interpretations of quantum theory introduce concepts that are extrinsic to its equations
("observers"), or even contradict them ("collapse of the wave function"). The relevant literature
is famously contentious and obscure. I believe it will remain so until someone constructs, within
the formalism of quantum mechanics, an "observer", that is, a model entity whose states
correspond to a recognizable caricature of conscious awareness; and demonstrates that the
perceived interaction of this entity with the physical world, following the equations of quantum
theory, accords with our experience. That is a formidable project, extending well beyond what is
conventionally considered physics.

We agree with Wilczek. A Planck scale mathematical entity must act as the “conscious”
actualizer of possible information into registered “physical’ information. Such an operator must
make choices of measurement and interpretation. If it operates within an algorithmic
framework, the aforementioned “hinge variable” step is required in order to make the system a
code/language and be compatible with the notion of self-reference and choice – defining
characteristics of “consciousness”.

We need not pigeonhole the notion of consciousness as being like that of a human being. A
more general definition can include a dog or a plant or a microbe. And when we get to things
near our arbitrary dividing line between living and not living, such as a viruses or crystals, we
might say that a consciousness does something similar to all patterns and systems – it tries to
propagate itself. Much work has been published about how patterns in general, both “living”
and “non-living”, seek to express themselves and evolve with the least amount of energy or
computation possible. The most fundamental aspect of consciousness may be self-reference
and feedback systems. Both self-reference and feedback are streams of relationship
measurements – the relationship of the pattern/entity to its environment and to aspects of
itself, such as temperature or hunger. Indeed, feedback and self-reference exist in primitive
form in all dynamic patterns (all patterns are dynamic) including those not considered living,
such as streams, weather systems, snowflakes, planetary systems and galaxies. Patterns have a
primitive “desire” to maintain their form for as long as possible. And to do so, they use
feedback to guide the quanta of changes within them. Feedback is fundamentally self-
referential and measurement based. Any measurement is ultimately a package of geometric
relationships between points of the measurer (whether it technological equipment or a
biological entity) and points in the system being measured.

So if the hard-to-pin-down term “consciousness” could be generalized to be “self-referential
patterns”, i.e., all patterns, then we have room for a range of such patterns, where some can be
arbitrarily labeled as “alive” and some as “not alive”. And a less arbitrary ranking system could
be reasonable, where consciousnesses such as humans and deep-future consciousnesses
beyond us, could possess more highly networked degrees of self-reference. Perhaps the degree
of consciousness could be based on the connectivity of the pattern within itself (such as a neural
network) and with the outside word (outside feedback loops) and the total connectivity of
systems of systems within it and its environment. In this framework, patterns with the greatest
potential for connectivity would be those with the greatest number of points. This is the case
with neural networks. The greatest number of nodes offers the greatest potential connectivity
but does not ensure that potential. For example, two humans with the same number of
neurons have different degrees of connectivity. But in general, a network with 100 times fewer
neurons will not approach the connectivity of the larger network.

Accordingly, the pattern with the greatest potential for connectivity is the pattern with the
greatest number of points – the entire spacetime universe, which includes the deep past and far
deeper future.

Quantum computers employ the concepts of quantum entanglement and superposition.
Superposition is the idea that particles occupy multiple locations and energy states at the same
time. Quantum entanglement is when two or more particles behave as though they are the
same object. It occurs in experiments when, say, 3 electrons share the same space in a
substance called a Bose Einstein condensate and are later separated. Once separated, they
remain connected – as though they are one – and ignore all common sense notions of locality.
For example, you can put one of the three electrons on Earth and the other two in another
galaxy 1 billion light years away. If you rotate the electron on Earth, the other electrons will
change in real time, even though a signal between them traveling at the speed of light would
take 1 billion years. The big bang theory tells us that the inception of the universe was a
moment when all particles shared the same space – similar to the idea of a Bose Einstein
condensate – before spreading out to form the universe as we know it. Theoretically, all
particles across spacetime are quantum entangled in a real-time neural network.

Pursuant to the deduction that reality is fundamentally information-theoretic, all information
must be generated by observation/measurement at the simplest Planck scale of the
code/language. The big bang and the idea of energy being something other than information
are both big audacious assumptions. But with the big bang, we are forced to consider it because
of physical experimentation and mathematical reasoning. However, there is no reasoning we
have heard of to urge us to assume that energy and spacetime are anything beyond abstract
information. This is groundless assumption, much like non-scientific belief or taste preference.
On the other hand, the theory that reality is information theoretic has been very well developed
in the literature with a large minority of scientists agreeing with it.

Some entity capable of choosing a measurement and an interpretation must exist at the Planck
scale both according to deep implications of quantum mechanics and to our deduction that
reality is information theoretic – i.e., energy and spacetime are made of abstract information.

Conjectures of how such an entity could exist are logical and supported by the known behaviors
of the universe, namely the concepts of (1) emergence, (2) self-organization, (3) evolution and
(4) special relativity. Nature is about emergence – systems of systems of systems – all
interacting with one another. The human being is an excellent example, where quarks and
electrons organize into about 100 different elements, which organize into countless compounds
and into hundreds of cell types and numerous organ types. Trillions of cells and larger systems
interact in a dizzying hierarchical neural network throughout our body such that a consciousness
capable of poetry and theoretical physics emerges. All of that high order emergence occurred
according to a deep self-organizational and evolutionary principle of the universe that will not
be fully understood until we have a predictive quantum gravity theory – a theory of everything.
The notion of evolution is key. Old style evolutionary theory, where survival of the fittest and
random mutation are the only mechanisms, are not being appreciated in academia these days.
There is work going on around the idea that there are additional influences working alongside
competitive evolution. For example, potential future organizational states of an evolving system
may act as “attractors” to earlier states, like a “minimum energy well”, acting on the
evolutionary process at one point in spacetime from a more distant point in the evolutionary
hierarchy.

The evolving tools and social behaviors of a species are interactive aspects of the overall
organization of energy/information into patterns in and around the species. For example, we
are beginning to hack our own evolutionary process by tapping into the genetic code. Our
technology has gone into a strange phase of growth that is exponential with fantastic
ramifications, as we enter the era of quantum computation. If humans take this runaway
evolution of intelligence and technology into the future with knowledge of a deep first principles
theory of everything, where manipulation of spacetime enters into the realm only dreamed of
by science fiction, then something interesting can happen. It is possible that high technology
and high creativity and intelligence, exploding exponentially, can turn vast areas of the universe
into a neural network. If wormhole-like time travel is possible or moving information around
non-locally becomes possible due to a deep understanding of some new quantum physics, then
consciousness can become a transformative force, steering the evolution of the universe in
surprising ways in the same way that your consciousness steers a large number of quarks and
electrons.

Understanding exponential growth is helpful for consideration of this idea. Consider the
changes in computational power and our ability to change the atmosphere and our ability to
leave the planet. Think about how those things have advanced over, let’s say, the last 40 years.
We know that the rate of change over that 40 years has exponentially changed, each year. This
is not science fiction. However, writing in 1930 about the exponential technological and
scientific changes that just occurred in the last 40 years would have sounded like fiction at that
time. Because this phenomenon is now really happening for everyone to see, it has become
respectable for people like Ray Kurtzweil and other futurists to pencil out our exponential
trajectory further into the near future, where unbelievable levels of technology emerge due to
the strangeness of how exponential doubling algorithms work. Humans, with our high
technology and high consciousness, have already begun leaving the planet. As we colonize
other words, the possibility of extinction of high consciousness approaches zero. Futurists like
Kurtzweil project a few decades into the future to bring us to Star Trek levels of exponential
growth (if indeed we are the only high consciousness/high-tech life). However, for our purposes
of cosmological physics and the search for a first principles theory of everything, we must
consider this principle of evolution and emergent intelligence in a very serious manner over
deep time. We logically consider what happens with runaway exponential technological growth
in, say, 1 billion years. What happens to the evolution of consciousness and intelligence as we
hack our own biology, choosing whatever level of mental computational ability our runaway
technology allows? How about 10 billion years? Well before this time, humans would have
speciated out to trillions of different ultrahigh tech and high consciousness beings, living
throughout vast stretches of the universe. And if a foundational quantum gravity theory were
discovered along the way, this speciated high consciousness population of the universe could
form a non-local neural network, where information is moved around, not with light but by
instant real-time connectivity. Cracking the code of quantized spacetime might allow high
intelligence to seed parts of the universe without the need to drive a vehicle at the speed of
light. The exponential growth of intelligence would be able to spread to all regions of
spacetime, according to the decision of the beings. And in these distant locations, with no
upward limit on density, conscious organization of physical information could exchange
information in real time without the need to use light signals.

Now, take the generalized concept of a “neural network”. The biosphere of Earth is sometimes
modeled in neural network-like ways in the literature. The internet has the potential to act as a
sort of neural network, where collective behavior such as distributed computing shows
emergent computational behavior not possible with any single computer. But the human brain
is clearly the most impressive neural network. Imagine the universe in, say, 100 billion years
with 10^30 different high consciousness/high technology species in virtually every star system in
the universe and in countless interstellar islands. This does not need to be the universe from
our vantage point in spacetime in order for it to be connected with us in a physical manner.

Follow the logic seriously by adding the notion of neural networking to this new organization of
information (beings) in the universe over deep time. The idea of a neural network is where
entities of a given level of intelligence – brain cells, for example – exhibit emergent intelligence
by exchanging information and acting out group behavior. The strangeness of quantum
computation and the experiments of quantum entanglement enjoy non-classical and non-
Einsteinian notions of relationships not bound by locality or the speed of light. Imagine a new
physics that allows non-local information exchange. It is difficult to pound one’s fist on the table
to say that such a thing cannot exist. Mankind does not yet possess a theory of everything. We
don’t even yet have a unification theory that successfully predicts anything or is free of
numerous forced plugs. So again, when dealing with the largest cosmological problems, like the
origin of the universe or the computational substrate that might exist if reality is information
theoretic, we must drop hidden dogma. We propose that if high consciousness can leave a
planet and seed the rest of the universe with exponentially advancing and non-local (real time)
neural networking, that such a neural network and its intelligence tends toward infinity over
deep time. Once the genie is out of the bottle and high consciousness seeds a meaningful
minority of the universe, it cannot be stopped by an exploding star or a nuclear war.
Remember, the universe is not 14 billion years old. That is the amount of it that we can see
from our location in spacetime. It is much, much older. And over a long enough time, whatever
can happen will happen.

The final principle mentioned at the beginning of this section was special relativity. The ultra-
deep future, say 100 billion years from now, exists as real as the present moment exists. It is
physical and part of the same spacetime geometry as we are. Photons cannot travel fast
enough for us to connect with distant parts of spacetime. But if there is an underlying code,
there should be an underlying computational/consciousness based substrate within which that
pure abstract information of the code exists. And as deduced, information can only exist via
choice/observation/interpretation. These are defining aspects of consciousness, even very
primitive self-referential patterns (feedback systems). So the most plausible explanation for
such a computational entity, which could have a large number of individual points of reference
to operate the code locally (our concept of “point projectors”) is some deep-time emergent
universal neural network. This means that the emergent entity exists because of the free but
coordinated behavior of the parts. And the parts only exist because of the emergent entity – a
fully self-referential and self-embedded system. The parts are embedded in the whole and the
whole is the emergent behavior of the parts.

In short, emergence, self-organization and evolution have already conspired to create ultra-high
human consciousness that has recently given birth to exponentially changing digital
computation. And in 2014, it gave birth to the first practical quantum computer. Neural
networking in nature is not very well understood, as admitted by neurologists studying human
consciousness. Whatever emerges over ultra-deep time will emerge exponentially and so is well
beyond our current imaginations. And whatever it is, may very well be non-locally networked.
The notion of it being “conscious”, like an advanced neural network is reasonable. The notion of
it playing a highly formative role in the universe, just as humans have recently begun to play a
formative role on Earth, is also reasonable. The outrageous speculation, however, is this.
Perhaps this inevitable universal intelligence looped back in spacetime to “have always been”
the computational substrate within which the genesis of the quasicrystal based code began at
the big bang. When thinking in Einsteinian terms, one must realize that future events, even very
deep future events, exist together in the same spacetime system as the big bang. As long as
there is no speculation of faster than light movement, one can speculate on a meta system of
spacetime or pre-space time, where instant connectivity exists, non-local connectivity, like in
quantum entanglement but with a deeper exploitation of the underlying code of reality
permitted by some new quantum gravity physics that is not yet understood.

5. Must be non-deterministic. QCs have a naturally occurring hinge variable, where, within the
matching rules, a binary choice of tile orientation exists. As long as the rules are followed, there
is no deterministic algorithm in a dynamical pattern of interacting waves in a quasicrystal.

6. Must be computationally efficient. The projection of a lattice to a QC with regular symmetry
conserves lengths and angles and conserves the ratio of vertex types and prototile types. What
emerges is a code/language that is as compact as possible, i.e., has as few characters as possible
and as simple of syntax as possible. The expression of interacting waves, which can be a
physically realistic model of spacetime and particles, has minimum computational requirements,
as can be demonstrated from geometric first principles related to the Sum of Squares law and
basic Euclidean geometry.

7. Must be a code of describing “jagged” (quantized) waveform – a waveform language.
Dynamical QC languages are interactions of jagged waves.

8. Must have a first principles explanation for preferred chirality in nature. Our 3D quasicrystals
require a chirality. And quasicrystal based spacetime, as a whole, must have either a right
handed or left handed chirality. While not explained well in this synopsis of our program, what
we do is use regular tetrahedra in 3D quasicrystals instead of the distorted space-filling type
from ordinary cut+projection methods. Basically, transdimensional “tension” exists when
projecting tetrahedra living in a hyperdimensional crystal down to 3D. This tension can be
released in the ordinary way via edge distortion of the cells. Our group works on an alternate
method. We keep the tetrahedra regular as they move from a hyper-dimension to 3D.
Accordingly, we must release the tension via rotation and disclination. And in so doing, we must
make a chirality choice for the system overall. A universe based on this formalism would
possess a deep first principles reason for a preferred handedness, we indeed we observe in
nature.

Below are additional ideas we employ in our work and elaboration of some of the above concepts.

Language

A language is a finite set of symbols and relational rules with limited combinatorial freedom used to
express meaning. A language which expresses the meaning of vibrational pattern can be called a
“waveform language”. What we label as spacetime and energy are patterns made of fundamentally
abstract mathematical information – a simple but undiscovered waveform language of quantized
spacetime. At this most fundamental level, this wave interaction language has no friction (friction is
a higher order phenomenon). Accordingly, it is a superfluid language.

Graph Theoretic Inspiration

Graph theory might have been better named “connection theory”. At the deepest level, quantized
spacetime is an abstract language – like a cellular automaton with a hinge variable. And expressions
of language are fundamentally connection networks of meaning. In other words, the connection
between groups of meaning need not be linear or local. For example, in the sentence, “Larry hated
his job until he learned they were planning on promoting him”, we can see that there are local
connections of meaning such as between “he” and “learned”. But we can also see there are non-
local connections/relationships between groups, such as the relationship of meaning between
“Larry hated” and “promoting him”. A better example might be a novel, where we enjoy non-linear
connections of meaning at multiple levels of the story. The relationship between networks,
languages and quasicrystals may be unclear at first glance. To help clarify, “meaning” at the
simplest level of this wave-language is generally local and expresses the meaning of “jagged” or
“pixilated” waveform patterns or oscillations in a quasicrystal geometric framework. The most
reduced form of these waves are 1D quasicrystal patterns, such as Fibonacci sequences. This is
analogous to the linear or local relationships of meaning in the example sentence with Larry above.
At slightly higher levels of meaning, the 1D sequences form 2D, 3D and 4D dynamical quasicrystal
systems, which have various emergent relationship groups that are not always nearest neighbor
(local). At these level in the emergent hierarch, though, the relationships, both local and non-local,
are distinctly wavelike. But as the hierarchy of emergence continues, patterns in this spacetime
superfluid, including the particle-like patterns allowed in the mosaic rules, begin to seem less and
less like waves, even though ultimately most things can be modeled with waves. For example, it is
difficult to see the pattern of memes flowing over time on the WWW as wavelike or the behavior of
the stock market as being wavelike without careful analytical approaches.


The question of conservation of information

Modern physics has excluded biological systems as a meaningful player in the evolution of the
universe. The idea that reality is fundamentally information residing in some neural-network type of
system (also made of information) where consciousness is the fundamental “stuff”, compels us to
look a little more carefully at the possible role of “life” in the evolution of the universe. Special
relativity reminds us that the future evolution of a system exists in the same system as earlier states
of the system. For example, we know that the human race in the year 2,100 exists within the same
geometry of spacetime as the human race in the year 1984. Special relativity does not permit the
notion of light based information exchange between these two subparts. However, quantum
mechanics related experiments indicate that near the time of the big bang, all the bosons in the
universe shared the same space and there should exist an intractable connection network of
“quantum entangled” pairs making up all of reality, where one partner is in one area of spacetime
and the other is in a very different area. Here, there is no need for light propagation in order to
thinking about emergent characteristics that might exist in this entangled system. Could the system
behave as a sort of neural network? That question is reasonable. A firm answer, though, is not
reasonable. Until a first principles quantum gravity theory is developed to replace the place-holder
theories of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, we must be aware that no scientist should be
able to pound their fist on the table about their guess.

We are open to the notion of interactions between past and future states of an evolutionary system.
In fact, some experiments (e.g., D. Bem of Cornell) indicate that of retro-causality is a phenomenon.

For now, since we deduce that the base of reality is, in the words of John Wheeler, information-
theoretic, we suspect that the mathematical equivalencies between the 2nd law of thermodynamics
(energy) and Shannon entropy (information) are very deep and relevant to a foundational quantum
gravity theory. In fact, the physicality of abstract information has been demonstrated via
experiment in 2010 by Toyabe et al using a phase contract microscope equipped with a high speed
camera connected to a computer.

Such possibilities lead to a very important question: If information and energy are shown to be
equivalent in some future quantum gravity theory, in what sense is information conserved?

Even without having a final quantum gravity theory, we can deduce a few ideas around the edges of
this question. First, total information is not conserved. For example, one can consider a human
being with x amount of energy as compared to a large rock with the same amount of energy. We
can also assume that both systems required the same value of input energy in order to organize
their respective informational values. However, the rock can have many orders of magnitude less
overall information than the human being. This is due to the phenomenon of emergent
evolutionary information. At the non-emergent level of information, we can measure, say, the
information of each atom in the rock and the human. If the rock contained the same ratio of
elements and the same total weight, it would contain the same amount of base information as the
human. Both systems have emergent information in a complex hierarchy of systems of systems of
systems of information. But the human hierarchy of emergent information extends far beyond the
rock. The beauty of this principle is that emergent forms of information do not cannibalize the
lower tiers of information within which they float. In fact, each emergent strata interacts with all
other strata in a complex network of interaction which itself adds to the net amount of emergent
information of the system.

The problem with eliminating high technology enabled consciousness from playing a major role in
the evolution of the universe is that it projects out exponentially on paper to become enormous.
Here at the dawn of the 21st century, we are getting a glimpse of what it might mean for exponential
computational power to continue for another 20 years as we move towards new forms of
computation altogether. We are beginning to see the exponential potential of what happens with a
species that uses genetics to program its own DNA – taking biological evolution into the strange
realm of exponential growth. The analogy of million bacteria on an apple comes to mind. At fairly
advanced stages of the exponential multiplication of the bacteria interacting with the apple, we can
see nothing. But at some point, the doubling algorithm explodes the influence of the bacteria into
the macro realm and they control the fate of the decomposition of the entire system – the apple
and the bacteria. High-consciousness, like that of humans and far beyond humans, coupled with
high-technology, like that which could emerge from the foundations of a first principles microscopic
theory of everything, will surprise us in terms of how it could connect the universe into a sort of
neural network of information exchange. We do not know if it is possible to connect things without
use of photons. But we also do not have a good theory of everything that allows us to say that it is
impossible.

So summarize this section: Information is not conserved. We live in information only universe
exponentially evolving in complexity. For example, the Large Hadron collider is the most
sophisticated aggregation of technology that has existed on Earth in 4.5 billion years. So when
measuring complexity of this pocket of the universe around Earth, we can say that the universe here
has never been so evolved and complex information-wise as it is today, circa 2015. We suggest a
phason transition in local pockets of the universe, where biology becomes hyper-influential. In
principle, non-local information exchange technologies based on future new physics could allow the
entire universe to become enveloped by a sort of neural network of high consciousness and
technology enabled entities. Our thesis is that, when the Einsteinian viewpoint is taken, that future
evolution exists “here” in the same overall spacetime system that our present exists and that the big
bang exits. And we speculate that the overall system across all of spacetime, after folding in highly
influential deep-future states of the universe, where consciousness explodes virally, acts as its own
substrate. In other words, the assumption of information existing within consciousness, starting at
the big bang (or before), is assumed to act as its own operating system or substrate – a substrate
which exists in the full system over spacetime, including the phases of the universe where, like the
bacteria and the apple, high consciousness emerges as a sort of neural network where emergent
entities such as the human species as a whole and individuals play a role is “neural nodes” in the
system-wide consciousness. The primitive CA-like entities and choosing mathematical operators
mentioned earlier exist within a meta-system that is a mind-like (not in the human sense).

We have painted here a far reaching picture of how evolution of emergent consciousness can loop
back to act as its own base “stuff” in an information only universe. We see a microcosm of this
concept occurring at a relatively primitive stage of evolution of Earth as a system. Today, human
consciousness and technology at the group level is influencing weather systems, the rest of the
biosphere and vast subsystems of the ordinary physical structure of the planet. In some cases,
exponential evolution can destroy itself and the system. In other cases, such evolution steers the
entire system towards overall meta-evolution.

Choice/freewill/perception/interpretation

At the core of the idea of consciousness measurement actualizing physical information into
existence is the notion of choice or freewill. Freewill does not preclude the idea of influence. It
coordinates influence. At a deep level, perception or interpretation must also play a role, since any
possible information actualized by the choice of observation/measurement also involves a choice of
interpretation of the observation. Our program uses the notion of language, where a certain agreed
upon set of general definitions of interpretation are used (such as in the English language). We
speculate that an ultra-simple CA-type code of rules and degrees of freedom are employed in a
system where the simplest operator is a binary “chooser” of active or inactive points in a
quasicrystalline based quantized spacetime code. The choosers are ultimately composed 0-
dimsional frames of reference of an emergent consciousness that spans the entire spacetime system
of future and past.