ooh this was starting to make sense at the beginning and then didn’t—I was getting excited at the first line though. seems like if I had to guess, you’re working on integrating concepts—try rephrasing into more formal terminology perhaps? I feel like if this is anything like how I think, you may have made reasonable jumps but not showed enough of your mental work for me to follow. calculation process of what? what do you refer to with “shape transformation”? what is it not the answer to? what fraction? result of what equation? etc etc.

Or, if I haven’t written it down anywhere else, it occurred to me that since we live inside the Tegmark mathematical universe, in which case the universe is just a giant formula and the process of solving it step by step, each next part after the equal sign is the next moment in time, and the value of the expression itself, what is stored between the equal signs, is energy. The superposition is the subtraction inside the parentheses, which with each step adds another multiplier to both parts of the difference, and the different Everett branches are the same two halves of each difference, just with the parentheses open.

Well, now it’s not that I think this is wrong, but rather the opposite, too obvious, and therefore useless.

Besides, it can also be presented in another form, in terms of the intersection of computer science and quantum mechanics, the universe, or rather, all universes in mathematics, is a bit string, which diverges into Everett branches, in the first sign you have 2 branches for 0 and 1, in the second you already have 4, in the third 8 and so on, each branch is a standard particular bit string, with each branch division the amount of information in this string grows, that is, entropy grows, and this direction of entropy growth in each individual branch is time.

The law of conservation of energy, or even more broadly the law of conservation, common to all mathematics, is that at each step you have for 0 you have 1 and vice versa, each time you divide this into two bit options and each time you have the opposite option, so the total entropy of all mathematics is also in some way zero, if you look from inside it is infinite, but to write this down, you do not need any length formula, zero length is enough for you.

So from the inside mathematics is infinite, but from the outside it adds up to zero. That’s sort of the answer to the question “why is there something and not nothing?” and that answer is that “something” refers to a piece of “everything” and “everything” is what nothing looks like from the inside.

I came up with this myself, but later I also saw someone else’s formulation of this, that for every number on the mathematical plane there is an inverse number, so even though the math has infinite information, it adds up to zero in the end, hence the law of conservation of energy.

As far as I know, it is widely known among physicists, as opposed to ordinary people, that energy is a conditional quantity, and the energy of a part of a system can be the energy of the whole system, since energy can also be negative, can be as negative as you want, so what we think of as zero is only a convenient point of reference.

I seem to have a better understanding of timeless physics since then, and if we talk more clearly about the regularity that I had in mind, then … point in time of the book or all at once, for there is no answer to the question “what day is it in Middle-earth?”, but all because our timeline has nothing to do with that one. And when we look at any mathematical object, its timeline, like the book’s timeline, is also not connected to ours, which is why they look outside of time. That is, because the timeline is not the same for the entire universe, there are many timelines, and we are inside our own, but not inside the timeline of some object like a book or something else. And you can also say that if you usually say something like “we see the passage of time when entropy grows” and “entropy is something that grows with time”, then outside of time physics reduces / reduces time to entropy. You link into a timeline chain those fragments of mathematical descriptions between which there is the least mutual entropy. This model of time also says that in addition to the standard linear time scale, there should be all non-standard time scales like different types of Everett branches, past, future and parallel, different types of time loops, like rings and spirals, and so on. And this can be called a calculation, because the calculation leads to a change in shape, another piece of information, and between it and the original one there will always be some kind of mutual entropy. It seems that everything, in short, did not work out, because although I myself understand what I meant then, I see that I expressed myself extremely unclearly. The answer question is, what does “working on the integration of concepts” mean? I don’t understand what is meant by this expression.

ooh this was starting to make sense at the beginning and then didn’t—I was getting excited at the first line though. seems like if I had to guess, you’re working on integrating concepts—try rephrasing into more formal terminology perhaps? I feel like if this is anything like how I think, you may have made reasonable jumps but not showed enough of your mental work for me to follow. calculation process of what? what do you refer to with “shape transformation”? what is it not the answer to? what fraction? result of what equation? etc etc.

Or, if I haven’t written it down anywhere else, it occurred to me that since we live inside the Tegmark mathematical universe, in which case the universe is just a giant formula and the process of solving it step by step, each next part after the equal sign is the next moment in time, and the value of the expression itself, what is stored between the equal signs, is energy. The superposition is the subtraction inside the parentheses, which with each step adds another multiplier to both parts of the difference, and the different Everett branches are the same two halves of each difference, just with the parentheses open.

Well, now it’s not that I think this is wrong, but rather the opposite, too obvious, and therefore useless.

Besides, it can also be presented in another form, in terms of the intersection of computer science and quantum mechanics, the universe, or rather, all universes in mathematics, is a bit string, which diverges into Everett branches, in the first sign you have 2 branches for 0 and 1, in the second you already have 4, in the third 8 and so on, each branch is a standard particular bit string, with each branch division the amount of information in this string grows, that is, entropy grows, and this direction of entropy growth in each individual branch is time.

The law of conservation of energy, or even more broadly the law of conservation, common to all mathematics, is that at each step you have for 0 you have 1 and vice versa, each time you divide this into two bit options and each time you have the opposite option, so the total entropy of all mathematics is also in some way zero, if you look from inside it is infinite, but to write this down, you do not need any length formula, zero length is enough for you.

So from the inside mathematics is infinite, but from the outside it adds up to zero. That’s sort of the answer to the question “why is there something and not nothing?” and that answer is that “something” refers to a piece of “everything” and “everything” is what nothing looks like from the inside.

I came up with this myself, but later I also saw someone else’s formulation of this, that for every number on the mathematical plane there is an inverse number, so even though the math has infinite information, it adds up to zero in the end, hence the law of conservation of energy.

As far as I know, it is widely known among physicists, as opposed to ordinary people, that energy is a conditional quantity, and the energy of a part of a system can be the energy of the whole system, since energy can also be negative, can be as negative as you want, so what we think of as zero is only a convenient point of reference.

I seem to have a better understanding of timeless physics since then, and if we talk more clearly about the regularity that I had in mind, then … point in time of the book or all at once, for there is no answer to the question “what day is it in Middle-earth?”, but all because our timeline has nothing to do with that one. And when we look at any mathematical object, its timeline, like the book’s timeline, is also not connected to ours, which is why they look outside of time. That is, because the timeline is not the same for the entire universe, there are many timelines, and we are inside our own, but not inside the timeline of some object like a book or something else. And you can also say that if you usually say something like “we see the passage of time when entropy grows” and “entropy is something that grows with time”, then outside of time physics reduces / reduces time to entropy. You link into a timeline chain those fragments of mathematical descriptions between which there is the least mutual entropy. This model of time also says that in addition to the standard linear time scale, there should be all non-standard time scales like different types of Everett branches, past, future and parallel, different types of time loops, like rings and spirals, and so on. And this can be called a calculation, because the calculation leads to a change in shape, another piece of information, and between it and the original one there will always be some kind of mutual entropy. It seems that everything, in short, did not work out, because although I myself understand what I meant then, I see that I expressed myself extremely unclearly. The answer question is, what does “working on the integration of concepts” mean? I don’t understand what is meant by this expression.