Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories accessible adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity group-theory higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorBrian
    • CommentTimeSep 2nd 2017
    • (edited Sep 2nd 2017)
    Hello

    I would like to ask is cohesive homotopy type theory and rearticulation of modern physics in this framework, compatible with some specific kind of philosophy, ancient eastern philosophy or maybe with Pantheism for example?
    I know that some of Hegels ideas resonate here.

    P.S.

    Please forgive me my language, english is not my first language.
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2017
    • (edited Sep 10th 2017)

    Sorry for the slow reply. There are some thoughts about this in the entry Science of Logic.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorBrian
    • CommentTime6 days ago
    • (edited 6 days ago)
    Thank you very much for response. I asked becourse I find this article:

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/305913763_Internal_logic_of_the_purely_self-related_One_A_mathematical_model_for_an_Univalent_Theory-of-Everything

    in which autor took a lot of your work, which is in footnotes.
    His project also include elements of Hegel's philosophy, but also the Buddhist principle of lack of absolute identity.
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTime6 days ago
    • (edited 4 days ago)

    @Brian

    that author has on RG six papers on particle physics from the late 90s jointly authored with his PhD supervisor, a thesis from Paris 7 in 1998, one 8-page paper from 2011 on the arXiv whose abstract starts

    This article introduces Universal Quantum Relativity which is a simple Theory of Everything. It relies on an ultimate doctrine that is the absence of absolute existence. This generalizes relativity principles up to a mother quantum theory. […]

    and two other pieces of writing that I hesitate to call articles. One (4 pages long) claims to extract the full standard model with no extraneous particles from a sedenion representation, but which has an elementary mathematical error in the second sentence of the abstract: “In this representation the 16-dimensional sedenions algebra is seen as 2-dimensional vector space over quaternions field.” and needs to remind the reader on the first page what the various quarks are called. The other is the one you mention above and has the concluding paragraph

    In order to experimentally confirm the theory, it should be further formalized in three main directions. First, one should check if the properties of our observable Universe, recently characterized through analysis of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations thanks to WMAP and Planck observations can be reproduced. In particular one should compute the quadrupole and octopole orientations of the CMB within Univalent ToE and make a prediction on whether they are aligned with each other or not. Then, transferring knowledge from homotopy type theory to algebraic topology and higher group theory one should be able to compute mass formula in the standard model though the singular value decomposition of the Cayley-Dickson algebra multiplication map and coupling constants through entanglement quantifiers. Last but not least one should be able to quantify if the presence of zero-divisors in that multiplication map can model the unidentified type of matter called Dark matter.

    All of this does not fill me with confidence, so I would not spend time trying to read or understand it (EDIT: that is: the linked article on RG, or the author’s other recent work).

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorBrian
    • CommentTime5 days ago
    Thank you very much, this information is important and I will follow your advice to not spend my time exploring it.
    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime5 days ago

    not spend my time exploring it.

    Just to highlight, that the “it” not worth exploring is just the specific article that you pointed to in #3, not the topic of your question in #1, which I replied to in #2.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    Thanks, Urs; I’ve clarified my closing remark.