Notes
Sunday 23 July 2023 - Saturday 29 July
[Notebook: DB 89: Cognitive Cosmogenesis]
[page 145]
Sunday 23 July 2023
Weinberg page 72: 'Quantum mechanics is not itself a dynamical theory. It is an empty stage. You have to add the actors. You have to specify the space of configurations, an infinite dimensional complex space, the dynamical values for how the state vector rotates in the space as time passes.' Richard Feynman & Steven Weinberg (1986): Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures
Hilbert space is the source of the noise that drives the universe driven by the [uncontrolled] omnipotence of the initial singularity - ie the world is built on omnipotent noise and a selection process [the eigenvalue equation] that picks the music out of the noise.
Cardinal numbers demand order because every one represents a complete system of events that may be drawn in the random orders specified by permutations, so a group is logically (naturally) confined [The Universe starts off as one event (entropy zero) and at every point in its evolution has a definite number of states represented by quanta of action like a group].
Why is the Universe so big? So there is room to escape from violence.
In the beginning (and always) the initial singularity, gravitation and quantum mechanics are identical and the first steps of differentiation are the quantum fixed points in the original symmetry.
[page 146]
Weinberg page 73: 'I would like to suggest something here that I am not really certain of but I think is at least a possibility: that specifying the symmetry group of nature may be all we need to say about the physical world beyond the principles of quantum mechanics.'
Cricket a game of nuancing probabilities by bowling strategies and fielding placements designed around the batsman.
The key to my game is to put the Hilbert space first and imagine it being built by fixed point theory [and superposition] inside the initial singularity understood as a closed set. As an open set gravitation sits there as a smooth continuous interior of the initial singularity contributing potential energy to the stationary points identified by quantum measurement which is the interaction of operators and vectors to create a photon which is in effect the realization of the basis vectors of the primordial Hilbert space. Saying the same thing over and over again, polishing it as we go [what is this energy?].
Weinberg: ' The paradigm for the symmetries of nature is of course the group of symmetries of space and time.' This is the special theory, but it is not deep enough to capture the basic reality of the word which is the symmetry with respect to complexity inherent in Hilbert space, so that all we need to know is encapsulated in the 2D Hilbert space, the qubit.
[page 147]
Weinberg page 74: The space of configurations of electron spin is 2D, as is the basic space of configuration of Minkowski space, 2D [x, t].
page 76: Internal symmetries are not related to space and time, eg conservation of electric charge [although we may assume that spacetime exists within elementary particles]. 'A broken symmetry, although a symmetry of the final underlying equations, is not a symmetry of the solutions [applications (?)] that correspond to the observable physical states.' Why? Because we observe them in Minkowski space, not in Hilbert space?
page 77: ' Lorentz invariance' is almost incompatible with quantum mechanics, so the combination of the two puts tremendous constraints on the form of any kind of dynamical theory.' ie there must be antiparticles [Feynman page 1 sqq].
page 78: But the photon is its own antiparticle, perhaps because in Hilbert space as the source of Minkowski space it avoids the Lorentz constraint [as Einstein noted, Maxwells equations are relativistically invariant]. Albert Einstein (1905): On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies
'. . . it is widely believed that it is impossible to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity except in the context of a quantum field theory.'
page 79: ' A QFT is a theory in which the fundamental ingredients are fields rather than particles; the particles are little bundles of energy in the field.' I feel that this is wrong, first from what I have read in Sunny Auyang, and from what follows here:
[page 148]
page 80: 'Matter itself dissolves and the universe is revealed as a large reducible representation of the symmetry group of nature,' but 'what we have at the very most is a framework with an infinite number of constants that need to be determined' because we think that fields are continuous. Auyang (1995): How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?
Football, the ball is the boson, players the fermions. Symmetry with respect to complexity brings the primordial epoch into the present at a more complex scale.
Monday 24 July 2023
Weinberg page ? Whether I am right or wrong, I feel that I have got the game under control and feel that I can demonstrate this in a critique of the Feynman and Weinberg essays that defined the current status quo with the exceedingly complex and self contradictory structure of quantum field theory. I am forcing myself (or being forced) further and further into the new physical theology and the pressure behind me is coming from the heuristic of simplicity which is basically the denial of Lonergan's division of the world of knowledge into proportionate and transcendental. Knowledge requires symbolism and as Shannon points out the measure of information and therefore of omniscience is entropy. Serendipidity
[page 149]
worked for me last might when I picked up Chandrasekhar's monograph on stellar structure and rediscovered Carathèodory's axiomatic approach to entropy. [Carathéodory expressed the second law of thermodynamics was expressed via the following axiom: "In the neighbourhood of any initial state, there are states which cannot be approached arbitrarily close through adiabatic changes of state." In this connexion he coined the term adiabatic accessibility.] So an exciting week (within the context of my rather dull and isolated life) lies ahead. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (1939, 1958): An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure, Constantin Caratheodory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Bernard Lonergan (1992): Insight: A Study of Human Understanding
Weinberg page 89: ' . . . we are looking for a theoretical framework based on quantum mechanics and a few symmetry principles in which the specific dynamical principle, the Lagrangian, is only mathematically consistent if it takes on a particular form. At the end of the day we want to have the feeling that "it could not have been any other way".
Weinberg page 90: '17 free parameters in the present standard model' which sounds completely stupid in the context of the heuristic of simplicity.
page 91: 'Coupling constants should be dimensionless.' [Although they are messages, and therefore have entropy and are physical and so may have some dimensions in Minkowski space]. My plan is they should all be quanta of action whose dimension in Hilbert space is probably 1 The problem with gravitation is that it is 'unrenormalizable' so that the theory is probably completely wrong.
page 92: Hawking and supersymmetry: probably does not work.
page 93: 'standard model is low energy approximation.' Maybe Hilbert space is zero energy approximation, like the Universe!
[page 150]
Weinberg page 93: So Steve thinks unification at 10^15 - 10^19 GeV, going in exactly the wrong direction!
page 95: ' The standard model works so well simply because all the terms that could make it look different are extremely small. . . . So far no effect except for gravity itself has been discovered coming down to us from the high energy scale where we [??] think the real truth lies'. Rubbish [?]. The real truth hides in the zero energy eternal quantum initial singularity. Then he turns to string theory. 'a little loop of discontinuity in space-time' ie wrong from the start, since spacetime is a quantum mechanical product [and a discontinuity implies a duality which implies entropy, and how did that come from the initial singularity?].
page 98: String theory describes 2D surfaces.
page 100: Some thought string theory described gravitation.
page 102: Weyl transformation: (position sensitive metric?)
page 103: Riemann 'ancient theorems' [what are these] ? 'symmetries determine the action'.
104: ' This, I think, is the first time this has happened in a dynamical theory: that the symmetries of the theory completely determine the structure of the dynamics, ie have completely determined the quantity that produces the rate of change if the state vector over time. I think it is for this reason, rather than any other, that some physicists are so excited.' This stuff seems totally stuck on Lorentz invariance as though Hilbert space is written on Minkowski space rather than the other way around.
In my story the kinematics of the primordial Hilbert space are driven by the omnipotent initial singularity [making the primordial kinematic noise]. Quantum theory extracts the stationary points from this process which are given the energy to become physical by gravitational potential.
[page 151]
Weinberg page 105: String theory has no free parameters.
page 106: 'string tension' sounds very musical and Hilbertian.
page 107: Dirac on beauty
page 108: 'Dirac's great work on the theory of electrons was an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and special relativity by giving a relativistic generalization of the Schrödinger equation [by using the γ functions to throw out the additional complexity introduced into the Schrödinger evolution by the Minkowski metric in Minkowski space]. I think today that that point of view is generally abandoned.' Probably a stupid decision. ' These days most people think that you cannot unify special relativity and quantum mechanics except in the context of quantum field theory (a string theory is a sort of quantum field theory).' Maybe there is hint in the 2D version of Minkowski, however, x2− t2 = 0.
page 110: '. . . I don't think [Dirac] would disapprove of what we are trying to do.'
Now to Feynman: Maybe also trapped my mapping Hilbert space onto Minkowski space [like Veltmann] introducing a whole lot of distraction into physics. The role of the quantum initial singularity is to provide a natural home for Hilbert space and gravitation via continuity and fixed point theory in sets that are neither open nor closed, ie symmetrical
[page 152]
with respect to [openness] and closure [, that is with respect to continuity and discreteness, simplicty and entropy]. Martinus Veltman (1994): Diagrammatica: The Path to the Feynman Rules, page 20
Celebrating 60 years in physical theology from 1963 to 2023. Hubris is good for the soul?
Tuesday 25 July 2023
Gravitation in some way represents the eternal aspect of the initial singularity, providing a constant background to the world. What made the big bang go off? A fluctuation? The origin of duality bang / not-bang. The initial duality is neither space nor time but a logical combination of both: now / not-now, superposed on here / not-here. How this happened is hidden in the absolute simplicity of God, and we theologians and physicists can only pick up the story when duality, the not operation and the quantum of action, make their appearance. Here is where our story begins, so the first § of "cc17_gravitation" is entitled 'In the beginning'.
Augustine and Aquinas laid the foundation for further understanding of the Trinity on their experience of their own consciousness: I carry an image of myself in my mind which is in practice my self, modified to some degree by the opinions I receive from others about me. Here I see the origin of consciousness in the initial singularity as explained mathematically by fixed point theory.
[page 153]
The usual story. I have got a feeling I cannot express in words but I am working on it. Physicists like short sentences like F = ma; novelists take a few hundred pages to get their feelings across, eg Le Carre explaining the stupidity of war and spying, made very relevant by nuclear weapons (Oppenheimer). [I have posted a few million words on the internet, hoping to eventually come out with a new theology and physics (see : Jeffrey Nicholls: trying to get my stolen god back)]. John Le Carre (1989): The Russia House, J. Robert Oppenheimer - Wikipedia
We may understand gravitation to be continuous and classical, so we can talk about it [like Einstein and Hilbert] in terms of the classical Lagrangian action and Hamiltonian mechanics, working next to the quantum theory. Get this right in cc17_gravitation which brings us from the initial singularity to 4D Minkowski space and the Dirac equation, and then we go to network and computation
I am reading the geniuses of physics and theology and differentiating myself from them. Above Weinberg, Augustine and Aquinas, next Feynman.
Feynman page 1: [ref above] The Reason for Antiparticles
'At first [Dirac] thought the spin or intrinsic angular momentum that the [Dirac] equation demanded was the fundamental consequence of relativistic quantum mechanics. However the puzzle of negative energies that the equation presented when it was solved eventually showed that the crucial idea necessary to wed quantum mechanics and
[page 154]relativity together was the existence of antiparticles' [or is it to realize that as a model of reality Hilbert space is independent of Minkowski space?]. Dirac equation - Wikipedia
Le Carre: Russia 'the great lie' The Roman Catholic Church.
Feynman page 3: ' The Pauli exclusion principle says that if you take the wave function of a pair of spin ½ particles and interchange the two particles [in Minkowski space] then to get the new wave function out of the old you must put in a minus sign.'
' With the existence of antiparticles, though, pair production of a particle with its antiparticle becomes possible, for example with electrons and positrons. The mystery now is, if we pair produce an electron and a positron, why does the new electron that has just been made have to be anti-symmetric with the electrons that were already around? That is, why can't it get into the same state as the others that were already there? Hence the existence of particles and antiparticles enables us to ask a very simple question: If I make two pairs of electrons and positrons and I compare the amplitudes for when they annihilate directly or for when they exchange before they annihilate, why is there a minus sign?'.
page 4: [Consider a disturbance by a potential U operator], amplitude φ0 → χ = -1 <χ|U|φ0> = -1 ∫ d3x χ* U φ0 (1)
Wednesday 26 July 2023
Feynman page 5: 'Now suppose there are two disturbances and we would like to know the amplitude for the second disturbance to restore the particle to its original state:
<ψ0 |U1 |φm > and <φm |U2 |ψo >, φm lasts for t2 - t1.
So we have disturbance U1, evolution t1 to t2, disturbance U2. We avoid the direct transformation from φ0 → φ0. U1 takes φ0 to ψm of energy Em which lasts t1 to t2 then U2 takes ψm to φ0.
All possible intermediate states must
[page 155]
be summed over:
Amp φ0 → φ0 = 1 - Σm <φ0 |U2(x2)> |ψm > × exp (-1 Em(t2 - t1)) <ψm |U1(x1) |φo >
In his discussions Feynman is assuming that relativistic transformations in Minkowski space influence events in Hilbert space. Is this the case, or can we replace this discussion in terms of a Hilbert space independent of Minkowski space. Here's the rub.
Reading Feynman tempts me to give up. He knows too much. His complex calculations about fermions and bosons seem to hide the truth which has been, for most of this year, so plain to me. He has dreamt up a wonderful story, encapsulated in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, which seems to irresistible and so bogus. I have to reject Feynman or reject myself and
[page 156]
and it is very clear, from a practical point of view that I should reject myself. All I have to put against the Feynman world of infinite mathematical complexity is the heuristic of simplicity and the apparent primordial simplicity of electrons and photons. The entropy of the explanation, if it is good and efficient, should be the entropy of the explanandum: the reality and the explanation should be [connected] by a reversible codec. So I stay on my track and study Feynman until I can see him through my picture.
Disturbance, observation, measurement operator, rotating the key until it clicks on a [real] eigenvalue [for every real number there is a transfinite set of complex numbers]. Love, gravitation, action. So I just press on with my story and see where it leads, since although it starts simple it eventually develops transfinite wings that can embrace any universe no matter how complex, providing a role for every quantum of action in the whole vast complex [on the principle that each new quantum, once created, is immortal and contributes to the actual count of the entropy of the universe; maybe the conservation of energy is related to the immortality (conservation) of quanta].
Thursday 27 July 2023
Oppenheimer Oppenheimer (film) - Wikipedia
Barbie Barbie (film) - Wikipedia
Feynman page 7: Particles emerge from the vacuum and disappear into the vacuum. The vacuum itself may be represented by a Hilbert space which is written on Minkowski space. The equations
[page 157]
written by Feynman on pages 5 and 6 are expressed in terms of complex amplitudes expressed in Hilbert space. The probabilities of the events described by these expressions are the real numbers obtained by squaring these amplitudes. I have been reading about Feynman diagrams for many years but have not really understood tham so that I am basically working in the dark [like all theologians] when I try to apply the Feynman version of quantum field theory which I have tried to learn from Veltmann. Now must be the time to read this book again but for the moment I will go with Feynman's Dirac lecture. Although I often feel that I am on the right track to unify physics and theology it is more a feeling than a model and I seem to be reluctant to trust my feeling although they make good stories and motivate my behaviour, a bit like wandering around lost in the bush trying to find clues to my location and the best way to go to reach my destination. Feynman diagram - Wikipedia, Martinus Veltman (1994): Diagrammatica: The Path to the Feynman Rules
page 7 (continued) Feynman attributes momentum and energy to particles moving in Hilbert space which I am reluctant to do, motivated by the cosmological constant problem which results from attributing real energy and momentum to the complex processes believed to take place in Hilbert space because of the confusion with Minkowski space. I try to avoid this problem by distinguishing kinematic motion from dynamic motion, an idea at the heart of cc17_gravitation.
[page 158]
Feynman page 7: 'In the indirect amplitude the particle is scattered from x1 to x2 and the intermediate states are particles with momentum p and energy Ep. We are going to suppose something: that all energies are positive.
page 8: 'Now here is a surprise: if we evaluate the amplitude for any a(x1) and b(x2) [ a(x1) = U1(x1)φ0(x1)√(2Ep)] . . . we find that it cannot be zero when x2 is outside the light cone of x1.' Here he is introducing a property of Minkowski space into the interpretation of a process in Hilbert space. And he continues: ' This is very surprising: if you start a series of waves from a particular point [in Minkowski space?] they cannot be confined inside the light cone if all the energies [in Hilbert space?] are positive. This is the result of the following mathematical theorem: If function f(t) can be written
f(t) = ∫0∞e-iωtF(ω) dω (4)
then f cannot be zero for any finite range of t unless it is zero everywhere.' But eiθ = cos θ + i sin θ , i.e. e− i ω t = cos (− ω t) + i sin (− ω t) which can have negative values like any complex number, so this does not seem to make much sense.
page 8: 'I am insisting that the frequencies be positive only' [what is a negative frequency?] (?)
[page 159]
Feynman page 9: ' In other words there is an amplitude for particles to go faster than the speed of light and no arrangement of the superpositions (with only positive energies) can get around that.
' Therefore, if t2 is later than t1 we get contributions to the amplitude from particles travelling faster than the speed of light, for which x1 and x2 are ('spacelike separated'). Now with spacelike separation [in Minkowski space] the order of occurrence of U1 and U2 [in Hilbert space] is frame dependent; if we look at the event from s frame moving sufficiently quickly relative to the original frame, t2 is earlier than t1. . . . '
page 10: 'So the requirements of positive energies and relativity force us to allow the creation and annihilation of pairs of particles, one of which travels backwards in time. . . . In other words, there must be antiparticles.
page 11: ' P (parity), T (time reversal) C (particle to antiparticle) PT = C.' This can work in Hilbert space, but what about Minkowski? Streater & Wightman (2000): PCT, Spin, Statistics and All That, pp 9 sqq.
Maybe in cc17_gravitation by distinguishing Hilbert and Minkowski and introducing negative gravitational potential we can sort this mess out.
page 12: Spin zero particles and Bose statistics
' The central idea is that we start with any state and act on it with any set of disturbances then the probabilities of ending up in all possible states must add up to one.' Normalization of quantum source.
[page 160]
Note to phone: (Feynman page 15) ' The vacuum is kinematic (driven by the divinity), it carries no real energy, only the formal energy of complex amplitude, which can be positive and negative, becoming positive when squared.'
Feynman page 16: '. . . let us start with the vacuum V (ie the no-particle state) and examine our familiar idea that the probability must be one. In the non-relativistic case this would have been a trivial exercise: starting with no particles, nothing could happen and the probability of nothing happening would be one. In the relativistic case, on the other hand, we have seen pair production and annihilation must be included.
page 17: fig 5. three diagrams vacuum to vacuum
page 19: fig 7. 'spectator particle' [influence made possible in 'distanceless' Hilbert space?]
page 20: fig 8 Exchange of 'spectator particle', since exchange particles indistinguishable.
pge 21: ' This enhanced probability is a very profound and important result. It says that the mere presence of a particle in a given state doubles the probability to produce a pair, the particles of which are in the same state. . . . This is the key feature of Bose statistics. . . .'
' Disturbance' which causes the phenomena must introduce the energy necessary to create the pair? [singlet?]
[page 161]
Feynman page 22; fig 9: pair production with and without exchange.
' . . . a special case of the general quantum mechanical principle: if a process can occur in more than one alternative way we add the amplitudes for each way.
page 23: Hanbury Brown Twiss Effect (R P Feynman (1962) Benjamin: Theory of Fundamental Processes). ' . . . the field mode harmonic oscillators whem quantized automatically imply a representation as Bose particles.'Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect - Wikipedia, Richard Feynman (1961): Theory of Fundamental Processes
Fermi statistics: 'We are going to have to understand why with spin ½ there is minus sign for each loop' (loops invented by Feynman, not part of nature). More on particles and anti-particles. Anti-particle behaviour completely determined by particle behaviour.
page 24: F(2,1) is relativistically invariant (equation 9) in both spacelike and forward light cone regions.
page 25: 'What about the backward light cone?'
page 27: ' PT which changes the sign of everything is really a relativistic transformation, or rather a Lorentz transformation, extended across the spacelike region by demanding that the energy is greater than zero. So it is not so mysterious that relativistic invariance produces the whole works [and Hilbert space is intrinsically relativistically invariant since it is independent of Minkowski space ?].
page 28: ' If you have a spin ½ state and you turn it around the z axis by an angle θ then the phase changes by e− i θ / 2.
[page 162]
' If you rotate by 360° you end up by multiplying the wave function by -1 [how does this connection work on the assumption that Hilbert is independent of Minkowski?]. . . . as we shall see, the mysterious minus signs in the behaviour of Fermi particles are really unnoticed 360° rotations.
Dirac: its rotation twice around which is really the same as doing nothing.
Feynman page 31: e2 − p2 = m2, ie E = m cosh ω, p = m sinh ω. ω is rapidity. (eq. 14)
Feynman produces a long discussion to distinguish bosons from fermions by the application of quantum field theory as a mixture of Hilbert and Minkowski space. I would like to get the same result by random superpositons of waves, sometimes adding (boson) sometimes subtracting (fermion) without any notion of special relativity and restricting the amplitudes of the 'waves' to two roots of unity in 2D Hilbert space which, when mixed with gravitation, gives massless bosons and massive fermions, too simple to be true, but on the other hand it must be so simple because it started with zero entropy and bosons and fermions are the basic categories of particle, entropy 1. So I like to break from Feynman and spend a bit of time with Carathéodory.
My superpower is that I am too old or lazy to understand complicated systems so I must simplify things to a maximum degree which is consistent with a universe derived from an absolutely simple god.
[page 163]
So we build a world on a Hilbert version of the vacuum which is in effect identical to a noise comprising superposition of a countable set of orthogonal 'frequencies' and then use Shannon's theory of communication in the presence of noise to extract stable 'particles' from this noise which are in effect eigenvalues of the superposition, staring in 2D Hilbert space [with photons?]. This may be the heart of cc17_gravitation, gravitation being the continuous (in Cantor's sense) noise which provides the energy to create the discrete universe [analogous maybe to the vacuum [fluctuation] in quantum field theory, a kinema driven by god].
>Chandrasekhar page 19: Carathéodory's principle: The differential of the heat, dQ, for an infinitesimal quasi static change, when divided by the absolute temperature T, is a perfect differential dS of the entropy function.' Subramanian Chandrasekhar (1939, 1958): An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure
Our job is now to produce entropy from an eternal quantum initial singularity represented by a ' Hilbert vacuum' the source of the ' Turing vacuum' via the Minkowski space.
On the one hand, after reading Feynman, I am feeling quite confident about my work, and on the other I am just reading an execrable James Bond story and making no progress at all. I wonder about the weirdness built into me by 4 billion years of evolution.
Two 'breakthroughs': 1. Evil is a consequence of evolution, not the devil;
[page 164]
and Hilbert space is independent of Minkowski space, supported by the quantum initial singularity. Now I am trying to fit the zero energy universe to the role of gravitation taking Hilbert kinematics, driven by divinity, to Minkowski dynamics, driven by energy rather than action, ie the transformation of action into energy [with the introduction of duality, ie time]. But the subconscious is still not happy. Is there a fourth 'breakthrough' in waiting? There is much to be disentangled.
Silent noise, the kinematic Hilbert noise in God [maybe a countable set of angels], the complex variation from which the real structure is selected, eigenvectors.
Friday 28 July 2023
Writing has become a lot more exciting now that I am filled with doubt and struggling to find fixed points upon which to build. I have now been relying on the God of Aquinas and the Catholic Church, supported by the initial singularity of the physicists for a very long time, and have concocted a semi-plausible story of how this became the present universe; but is there any sense in this? My fundamental desire is to provide a scientific foundation for democracy versus violence, supported by the simple fact that the Earth is an extraordinarily complex and peaceful place compared to the supernovas that have made it possible, and this leads to the idea that wilderness rather than
[page 165]
authoritarian control is the key to peace, but the connection seems difficult to make. In the end we want to work toward high entropy and low temperature according to the thermodynamic differential dS = dQ/T. Where T = 0, entropy is infinite and the system is eternal [ie its quantum frequency is 0]. This idea is consistent with the idea that Hilbert space inside the eternal initial singularity is the pure infinite silent noise from which the evolution of the universe has selected the universe we inhabit and the key to this story seems to be the relationship between gravitation and dynamics in the evolving universe which is following an inevitable course from simplicity to the maximum entropy some call heat death. But I am not heat dead, I am a product of this process, or something like it, and want to understand it as a gift to myself and my local and extended family; but [I] am at present unable to explain my position very clearly, hence the excitement of doubt that physicists see as the cosmological constant problem arising from quantum uncertainty. This seems to me to be a radical error built around the idea than an immaterial divinity is omniscient. It is all here, however, we just have to unscramble the egg. Maybe submit this as a sense / nonsense op ed to the NYT, a plea for help.
Saturday 29 January 2023
A little bit of dark night. I blame the shingles. Now
[page 166]
back to work. Despite the doubts and difficulties, uniting physics and theology may be necessary and sufficient for world peace. I have got about 20 years to sort it all out.
Poor passionate Sinead O'Connor. I have had some experience of the Roman Catholic Church. The version that I knew as a child and in the Dominicans was largely imported from Ireland but I have never had a passionate aversion to it. Nevertheless I think it is a great evil because it is so wrong and all the theological and physical work I have done in my life has been directed toward correcting that error which stretches back to Plato and beyond and is founded on the political fact that one can enjoy a good life by treating powerless people violently. The Catholic top down theology justified this position, falsely, and my dispassionate project is to show that the world is built from the bottom up rather than the top down. Politically this may be a copout, but scientifically it may get us closer to peace and reality. I am hoping that I can generate a story that will ignite passion in myself as we have seen in Jesus, Sinead and millions of others. I am too lazy and complacent to take the passionate path, perhaps because it will not bring me closer to my heart's desire, a consistent and effective theology. I have to create a new story to replace the old one and then I will feel safe enough to become a preacher as I once was a carpenter.
[page 167]
The passion I need is the passion to press ahead with a set of ideas that are rather out of the physical mainstream but consistent with the ancient theological foundation and of sufficient potential variety to embrace the current world. All this discussion does not take my project ahead much but every now and then it may provoke another insight along the way. What I am looking for at the moment is a scenario to get Feynman's results without embracing the apparent hypothesis that Hilbert space is controlled by Minkowski space. This seems to be universally accepted as a given rather than as as product of perhaps some combination if logic, gravitation, Hilbert space and quantum theory, a set of ingredients looking for a recipe (see page 156 this week) [the proposed key to the recipe will be cc17_gravitation] whose entropy is the same a the entropy of the set of phenomena to be explained. In particular the origin of bosons, fermions and 4D Minkowski space which, given the consistency of a differentiable manifold, gives us general relativity and the shape of the universe.
Agatha Christie Evil Under the Sun: the entropy of the book is equal to the entropy of the crime plus a lot of tacit information about the culture in which the crime and crime literature is embedded. Christie is my epistemological guru, operating on an infinitely broader canvas than Einstein, Aquinas or Lonergan, trying to incite insights / orgasms in one another, mental reproductive events. Christie page 93 'blackmail'. Agatha Christie (1941): Evil Under the Sun, Lonergan (1992): Insight: A Study of Human Understanding
[page 168]
Entropy demands space for the distinction of symbols.
Hunting for ideas – wandering through my mental wilderness looking for prey, meanwhile watching cricket for the first time in my life. Still waiting for cc17_gravitation to be born [or a least to go into labour].
A. O. Scott Anthony O. Scott: Nobody Ever Read American Literature Like This Guy Did
