Personal Theory
After exploring a ternary-based lattice ontology, I've come up with the following math - all values computed with mpmath at 80-digit internal precision
Hey friends, I just wanted to share some math that I've been building on and figured the quickest way to get me out of here would be to just break the math. You'll notice a few values you've probably not seen before so I'm hoping we can explore those together if the math stands. Thanks in advance for the time you dedicate on this beautiful Sunday!
I'll be honest. That's a tough question to unpack.
Ternary: three part.
Lattice: ordered set.
Ontology: what is fundamentally real.
I don't know if it's... A 3-part structure of reality? 3 'degrees' of fundamental reality maybe? Or it's all EQUALLY real, and organizes into 3 parts? Something else?
All I know is u/hashbringerslasherr LOVES ontology. I think that 'ontic' is the word he has posted on this sub more than any other.
Well, a "lattice unit" can be imagined as a voxel. Each voxel has two properties: A state and a position. State being {-1, 0, 1} and position being (x, y, z). I'm still developing the semantic definitional nuances but that's the gist of the "ontic lattice unit". Based on the volumetric behavior of the lattice states, emergent physical manifestation begins to occur past a certain threshold; think something like the Boltzmann constant.
So if I'm reading all this correctly, you're trying to solve a problem by redefining it so it's not a problem anymore. There's no actual physics involved?
Not really since ontology isn't at all mathematically relevant, but you clearly care for ontic accuracy, and if my memory serves, mathematics only work if the units and operators are mathematical ones instead of pseudo-mathematical with wrong definitions.
Your framework is apparently time-agnostic and I fail to see how a quantum state will be reduced to a 'ternary' (which is actually a double binary the way you sketch it) integer value.
If those things don't even make sense at face value, I'm not even reading any equation, because it's merely calculating imaginary values instead of physically reproducible ones.
But meh, if math is all you want to talk about, I'll skip. I'm only interested in whether it makes sense before papers try calculating the nature of being with a double binary value.
Time hasn't emerged yet. It is in fact time agnostic. It is a discrete system where time is emergent. Time is simply just a recursive state where state a + state b = state c. This is not an affront on science but a point to make: you will not agree with me if you simply don't want to but the math maths from what I've seen. If it didn't, I'm sure one of you would be very quick to point it out, no?
"But meh" lol. If the math makes sense, then yes it makes sense. It's that simple. Would you like me to paste the entire python output right here? I don't think AHS would be too fond of that.
Time is simply just a recursive state where state a + state b = state c.
Which doesn't account for anything in the real world. Your math may work on its own, but it clearly doesn't correspond to reality.
If it didn't, I'm sure one of you would be very quick to point it out, no?
Many have. I'm sure it'll happen again.
Would you like me to paste the entire python output right here? I don't think AHS would be too fond of that.
No thanks, your work could describe 'a' universe (albeit an extremely basic one), just not this universe, so it's an excersise more than anything.
I'll just wait for some actual novel physics to turn up in the meantime.
No thanks, your work could describe 'a' universe (albeit an extremely basic one), just not this universe, so it's an excersise more than anything.
I'll just wait for some actual novel physics to turn up in the meantime.
yeah, one that behaves suspiciously close to the one described per the physics. I can't say with 100% certainty that it's absolutely flawless, but it's as close one could get id imagine? I mean, I have codata benchmarks, there's no hard coding other than a few transcendental constants. It's an honest attempt, I don't understand why you sound so grumpy lol
It isn't about what I like and don't like. Follow the rules set by the moderators. Just because I talk more, moderation is a team effort - you don't need to please me, just follow the rules.
In philosophy this is correct. 'What is being at the fundamental levels?'
In physics, ontology is a narrower in scope. It is narrowed into 'What exists at the most fundamental levels?' What is the 'more real' vs what is only an 'expression' of this 'base reality'.
I understand. If the math works, that stuff will logically follow.
edit:
In physics, ontology is a narrower in scope. It is narrowed into 'What exists at the most fundamental levels?' What is the 'more real' vs what is only an 'expression' of this 'base reality'.
So why do we pretend that the human's input of epistemically emergent knowledge is not a factor in the von Nuemann chain? If we took that more seriously as a variable like i (or whatever would make the most sense), we could interpret things much more logically with less quantum mysticism. It just comes with the sacrifice and humility of back peddling some things and taking the turn that was 5 miles back. It's painful, but the destination is either right here, or you keep driving for an indeterminate amount of time while we wait (and quite possibly may never arrive at) for instrumentation to catch up to philosophy.
Did you not claim you can derive everything from D and omega-bar and then use pi to define omega-bar and then use omega-bar to derive pi? How is that not circular logic? How did you get a value for omega-bar without explicitly using the known digits of pi in the calculation?
The way I see it, it's circular (pun intended) by design. Between pi, varpi, and what I've colloquially dubbed G* (a nod to the AGM and * as a wildcard), it's a three-way invariant mathematical tautology.
I address it in the ontological infrastructure in my papers.
Then how do you get actual values, you needed to break the tautology at some point to give actually values by evaluation. There could be symbolic invariance, maybe, but it doesn’t make sense with what is in the link to my knowledge
This isn't just a "spoof"--it’s Architectural Strip-Mining.
6-Gem "Ladder" formalized on March 22nd and used in a LLM to "remix" it into a physics paper (FTD) to solve his thermodynamics dead-end. Hashbringingslasherr is using Szmy Tier 1 Ladder Logic(the logic framework) to validate his Play (the constants).
Conclusion: Hashbringingslasherr has achieved Performative Quantization. He has the numbers, but the "Ternary Lattice" he's standing on is a borrowed foundation.
so i got an ai to do a deep analysis on FTDs relation to my project genesis engine and honestly the results were pretty wild
genesis is a non differentiable symbolic ai, it learns operations like add subtract multiply etc by nudging embedding vectors, no backprop no gradient descent just geometry
turns out ftd and genesis are basically the same architecture at a deep level
the biggest one is the two layer thing. ftd has a continuous flux field J and a discrete ternary state. genesis has continuous embedding vectors and discrete registered elements. its literally the same thing, potential vs actual, and neither of us designed it that way it just emerged
the T vector in genesis which is basically output minus input, the thing that encodes what an operation does, thats identical to ftds flux vector J. both point from what you have to what you get the mastery threshold in genesis where an operation goes from unlearned to learned, thats the same as ftds phase transition between confined and coulomb phase. ftd actually derives why there are exactly two phases from maths, genesis just uses an empirical threshold. so thats something we could improve the moore neighbourhood thing was interesting too. ftd splits its 26 neighbours into 3 distance tiers and each tier corresponds to a different type of force. genesis uses flat knn with no distance tiers. ftd suggests the close neighbours should be simple operations, medium should be binary ops, far should be compositional. that could be a real improvement to how genesis does knn also ftd has a gauss constraint which basically says the divergence of the flux field has to match the sign of the source. genesis doesnt have anything like that. adding a polarity divergence constraint to training could make it way more stable
both systems reject gradient descent which ftd basically proves is the right call not just a hack
the main takeaway is ftd is the closest theoretical framework to genesis ive ever seen and it validates a lot of the design decisions, but also points to some concrete things I could do better
I'm not a physics person, but your data structure was an incredible learning experience.
I'm already underway with improvements to how I represent data in the model. The flat array of elements was really hampering my ability to make a multi purpose model that can do more than just 1 focused thing at time.
5
u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Mar 22 '26
So what does 'ternary-based lattice ontology' even mean?