Baez, John C., and Mike Stay. “Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone.” Quantum Physics; Category Theory. arXiv:0903.0340 [Quant-Ph] 813 (March 2, 2009): 95–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12821-9_2.

for - quote - classical physics supervenes on quantum physics, which supervenes on quantum information, which supervenes on consciousness - Federico Faggin - Giocomo Mauro D'Ariano

for - consciousness - incomplete knowledge of science - hole in understanding - physics - neuroscience - quantum mechanics - Federico Faggin

for - Federico Faggin - quantum physics - consciousness

summary - Frederico Faggin is a physicist and microelectronic engineer who was the developer of the world's first microprocessor at Intel, the Intel 4004 CPU. - Now he focuses his attention on developing a robust and testable theory of consciousness based on quantum information theory. - What sets Frederico apart from other scientists who are studying consciousness is a series of profound personal 'awakening'-type experiences in which has led to a psychological dissolution of the sense of self bounded by his physical body - This profound experience led him to claim with unshakable certainty that our individual consciousness is far greater than our normal mundane experience of it - Having a science and engineering background, Faggin has set out to validate his experiences with a new scientific theory of Consciousness, Information and Physicality (CIP) and Operational Probabilistic Theory (OPT)

to - Frederico Faggin's website - https://hyp.is/JTGs6lr9Ee-K8-uSXD3tsg/www.fagginfoundation.org/what-we-do/j - Federico Faggin and paper: - Hard Problem and Free Will: - an information-theoretical approach - https://hyp.is/styU2lofEe-11hO02KJC8w/link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-85480-5_5

for - quantum physics - John Wheeler's theory - validating

for - consciousness - quantum explanation depends on - difference between - quantum physics - and classical physics

consciousness - quantum explanation depends on - difference between - quantum physics - and classical physics - quantum state evolves in Hilbert space - enables computation of probabilities of what one measures in space-time - but doesn't tell you what you will measure - This difference is critical for describing consciousness as a quantum phenomena

quote from Christoph Adami at https://twitter.com/ChristophAdami/status/1711583362647814485

Re: George Ellis https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03061-y

Physicists and quantum mechanics as solution to consciousness.

See also: Physics in Mind: A Quantum View of the Brain by Werner R. Loewenstein

| physics/mathematics | Classical Physics | Quantum Mechanics |<br /> |---|---|---|<br /> | State Space | fields satisfying equations of laws<br>- the state is given by a point in the space | vector in a complex vector space with a Hermitian inner product (wavefunctions) |<br /> | Observables | functions of fields<br>- usually differential equations with real-valued solutions | self-adjoint linear operators on the state space<br>- some confusion may result when operators don't commute; there are usually no simple (real-valued) numerical solutions |

One of the problems in approaching quantum gravity is the choice for how to best represent it mathematically. Most of quantum mechanics is algebraic in nature but gravity has a geometry component which is important. (restatement)

This is similar to the early 20th century problem of how to best represent quantum mechanics: as differential equations or using group theory/Lie algebras?

This prompts the question: what other potential representations might also work?

Could it be better understood/represented using Algebraic geometry or algebraic topology as perspectives?

[handwritten notes from 2023-02-02]

strong statement, what do people think about this? is it accepted by anyone or dismissed?

https://inference-review.com/article/woits-way

link to: text: https://hypothes.is/a/macvwJ5zEe2kdF_K9kCN-A

Woit, Peter. Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations: An Introduction. Revised and Expanded version [2022]. Springer, 2017. https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/QM/qmbook.pdf.

Reminds me of something Carl Sagen said - I think it was Sagen though might have been Feynman - in the context of quantum physics, that the universe is under no obligation to observe our rules, or something like that.

“Because physicists started out with the imaginary, unstable cube as their model instead of the real-world stable tetrahedron, they got into all these imaginary numbers and other complicated and completely unnecessary mathematics. It would be so much simpler if they started out with the tetrahedron, which is nature’s best structure, the simplest structural system in Universe.

(Just as an aside, to remember later when you’re studying physics in school, I want to point out that the tetrahedron is also equivalent to the quantum unit of physics, and to the electron.)”

If the Bauhaus existed today, what would it look like?

What would the Bauhaus do differently, learning from the mistakes of the past and how modernism was co-opted by neoliberal capitalism.

Why must unitary operator only be surjective? Why not bijective?

A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter, David Bohm